Appendix B1 Biological Resources Conservation Plan THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK TABLE OF CONTENTS

B1.1 Introduction ...... B1-1

B1.2 Regulatory Framework ...... B1-2

B1.3 Overview of Biological Issues ...... B1-6

B1.4 Biological Resource Mitigation Measures ...... B1-49

B1.5 Biological Monitoring Requirements ...... B1-92

B1.6 Literature Cited ...... B1-93

Attachment A – Biological Resources Survey Requirements

Attachment B – Biological Resources Monitoring Plan Framework

Attachment C –Wildlife Variance Management Plan Framework

Attachment D – Migratory Bird Nest Management, Monitoring, and Nesting Plan Framework

Attachment E – Clay and Deseret Milkvetch Suitable Parameters

Attachment F – Uinta Basin Hookless Survey Protocol

Attachment G – Seasonal and Spatial Restrictions for Biological Resources

Energy Gateway South Transmission Project B1-i Plan of Development Appendix B1 – Biological Resources Conservation Plan November 2016 THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK

LIST OF ACRONYMS

APLIC Avian Power Line Interaction Committee

BA Biological Assessment BE Biological Evaluation BIA Bureau of Indian Affairs BLM Bureau of Land Management BO Biological Opinion

CFR Code of Federal Regulations CIC Compliance Inspection Contractor Company PacifiCorp CSU Controlled surface use

DPS Distinct population segment

EIS Environmental Impact Statement EPG Environmental Planning Group, LLC ESA Endangered Species Act

FLPMA Federal Land Policy and Management Act FR Federal Register FWS U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service

GHMA General Habitat Management Area GIS Geographic information system kV Kilovolt

LUPA Land use plan amendment

MBTA Migratory Bird Treaty Act MIS Management indicator species

NEPA National Environmental Policy Act NEP Nonessential Experimental Population NERC North American Electric Reliability Corporation NFMA National Forest Management Act

PHMA Primary Habitat Management Area POD Plan of Development Project Energy Gateway South Transmission Project

RMP Resource management plan ROD Record of Decision

UDWR Division of Wildlife Resources U.S.C. United States Code USFS U.S. Forest Service

WGFD Wyoming Game and Fish Department

Energy Gateway South Transmission Project B1-iii Plan of Development Appendix B1 – Biological Resources Conservation Plan November 2016 THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK

APPENDIX B1 – BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES CONSERVATION PLAN

B1.1 Introduction The purpose of the Biological Resources Conservation Plan for the Energy Gateway South Transmission Project (Project) is to assist the federal land-management agencies and Project personnel in meeting their obligations to protect biological resources during the planning, design, and implementation of the Project. The plan includes information on (1) regulatory requirements and agency concerns pertaining to biological resources, (2) anticipated and permissible impacts on biological resources associated with the Project, and (3) mitigation measures, stipulations, protocols, and/or techniques required to reduce these impacts.

The information contained in the Biological Resources Conservation Plan was developed in collaboration with agency resource specialists using information contained in the Final Environmental Impact Statement (EIS), the U.S. Forest Service (USFS) Biological Evaluation (BE), and the Biological Assessment (BA) and Biological Opinion (BO) prepared for the Project. Compliance with the stipulations contained in the Biological Resources Conservation Plan is required to maintain compliance with these documents. The plan provides information regarding the distribution and abundance of particular biological resources that was developed using data provided by relevant agencies and will be updated to include information gathered through resource surveys conducted along the right-of-way prior to completion of the Plan of Development (POD).

Prior to completion of the POD and final engineering design of the Project and initiation of the Geotechnical Investigation, surveys will need to be conducted to collect biological resource information for the Project. The survey requirements and approved methodologies are presented in Attachment A – Biological Resources Survey Requirements.

Some biological resources exhibit natural annual variation in their abundance, distribution, and detectability. As described in this plan, some biological resources must be monitored before, during, and after construction activities to collect information about their condition and inform the application of conservation and mitigation measures in the field. Detailed biological monitoring requirements are described in Attachment B – Biological Resources Monitoring Plan.

The plan does not identify mitigation measures for aquatic or riparian resources. Riparian resources are addressed in Appendix B3 – Resources Protection Plan.

B1.1.1 Plan Updates This plan will support the draft POD sufficiently to complete and execute the Bureau of Land Management (BLM), USFS, and Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA) Records of Decision (RODs) for the Project. This plan will be updated and refined through the development of the POD as biological surveys and engineering design are completed to meet any stipulations of the RODs, BLM and USFS biological resource management policies, BLM right-of-way grant, USFS special-use authorization, and BIA encroachment permit and grant of easement before issuance of the Notice(s) to Proceed and commencement of construction. The Construction/Construction Contractor(s) will be responsible for preparing and implementing the POD.

Energy Gateway South Transmission Project B1-1 Plan of Development Appendix B1 – Biological Resources Conservation Plan November 2016 B1.2 Regulatory Framework The following provides an overview of regulations applicable to biological resources that have been considered in the development of this plan.

B1.2.1 Federal Laws and Regulations

 Endangered Species Act (ESA) of 1973 requires federal agencies to consult with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) to ensure that actions they authorize, fund, or carry out are not likely to jeopardize the continued existence of a listed species or result in the destruction or adverse modification of designated critical habitat. Take of ESA-listed species is prohibited without specific exceptions or permits issued under the ESA. Under the ESA, the definition of “take” includes harass, harm, pursue, hunt, shoot, wound, kill, trap, capture, or collect or attempt to engage in any such conduct. The FWS has further defined harm to include significant habitat modification or degradation that results in death or injury to listed species by significantly impairing behavioral patterns, such as breeding, feeding, or sheltering.

 Federal Land Policy and Management Act (FLPMA) (43 United States Code [U.S.C.] 1701) as amended, consolidates and articulates BLM and USFS management responsibilities and governs most uses of federal lands, including authorization to grant or renew rights-of-way. In accordance with FLPMA, BLM, and USFS must make land-use decisions based on principles of multiple use and sustained yield. A grant of right-of-way must be limited to its necessary use and contain terms and conditions that reflect the agencies’ management responsibilities under FLPMA, including minimizing impacts on biological resources.

 Migratory Bird Treaty Act (MBTA) of 1918 (16 U.S.C. 703) makes it unlawful to pursue, hunt, take, capture, kill, or possess any migratory bird, part, nest, or egg of such bird listed in wildlife protection treaties among the United States and Great Britain (on behalf of Canada), Mexico, Japan, and the former USSR. This act also contains a clause that prohibits baiting or poisoning of these bird species. A list of species covered by the MBTA can be found in Title 50, Code of Federal Regulations (CFR), Section 10.13. The MBTA applies to many bird species, including raptors, and protects them from prohibited activities during construction, operation, and maintenance of the Project.

 Executive Order 13186 (Migratory Birds) requires federal agencies to protect migratory birds and to consider impacts on migratory bird species during Project planning. The federal agencies are directed to develop and implement a Memorandum of Understanding with the FWS to promote conservation of migratory bird populations.

 BLM MOU WO-230-2010-04 (Memorandum of Understanding between the U.S. Department of the Interior Bureau of Land Management and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service to Promote the Conservation of Migratory Birds) directs the BLM to evaluate the effects of the BLM’s actions on migratory birds on a project level and implement approaches to reduce these effects.

 Forest Service Agreement #08-MU-1113-2400-264 (Memorandum of Understanding Between the U.S. Department of Agriculture Forest Service and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service to Promote the Conservation of Migratory Birds) identifies specific activities where cooperation between these parties will contribute to the conservation of migratory birds and their .

 Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act (16 U.S.C. 668) applies primarily to taking, hunting, and trading activities that involve bald or golden eagles. The act prohibits the taking of any individuals of these two species, as well as any part, nest, or egg. The term “take” as used in the act includes pursue, shoot, shoot at, poison, wound, kill, capture, trap, collect, molest, or disturb (16 U.S.C. 668).

Energy Gateway South Transmission Project B1-2 Plan of Development Appendix B1 – Biological Resources Conservation Plan November 2016  Executive Order 13112 requires federal agencies to prevent the introduction and spread of , detect and respond rapidly to control such species, monitor invasive species populations, and restore native species and habitat conditions in ecosystems that have been invaded. In addition, the order requires a federal agency to “not authorize, fund, or carry out actions that it believes are likely to cause or promote the introduction or spread of invasive species.”

 National Forest Management Act (NFMA), as amended, and its implementing regulations under 36 CFR 219, consolidate and articulate USFS management responsibilities for lands and resources of the National Forest System. The NFMA requires that each national forest develop a management program based on multiple-use, sustained-yield principles and implement a land- management plan for each unit of the National Forest System. The implementing regulations at the time the current forest plans were approved required the identification of management indicator species (36 CFR 219.19). These species were selected because their population changes were believed to indicate the effects of management activities on habitats or other species of selected major biological communities or water quality. The land-management plan established objectives for the maintenance and improvement of habitat for the management indicator species.

 BLM Resource Management Plans (RMP) and Management Framework Plans for Wyoming, including Rawlins Field Office (2008); for , including White River (1997, as amended) and Little Snake (2011); for Utah, including Richfield (2008), Fillmore (1987), Price (2008) and Vernal (2008) Field Offices and Salt Lake District (1990) specify regulations and goals for management of BLM-administered lands and set restrictions to protect biological resources and the habitats on which they depend.

 BLM Utah-Instruction Memorandum-2005-091 provides the Utah BLM Riparian Management Policy aimed at identifying, maintaining, restoring, and/or improving riparian values to achieve a healthy and productive ecological condition for maximum long-term benefits and overall watershed protection while allowing for reasonable resource uses.

 BLM Washington Office Instructional Bulletin 2012-097 directs BLM policy for any cutting or removal of timber, trees, or vegetative resources, including such resources located in the clearing limits of rights-of-way.

 BLM Manual 1740-1 – Integrated Vegetation Management and BLM Manual 1740-2 – Renewable Resource Improvement and Treatment Guidelines and Procedures outline policies, objectives, and standards focused primarily on planning, analyzing, constructing, maintaining, replacing, or modifying renewable resource improvements and treatments, such as for forestry, invasive species, and range management.

 BLM Manual 6840 (6840 Policy, Rel. 6-125) provides management direction and guidance for the conservation of special status species and their habitats. Under this policy, special status species include and species listed as threatened or endangered, proposed for listing, or candidates for listing under the provisions of the ESA; those listed as sensitive species by a state; and those listed by a BLM State Director as sensitive. The objective of this policy is to ensure actions requiring authorization or approval by the BLM are consistent with the conservation needs of special status species and do not contribute to the need to list any special status species under provisions of the ESA.

 Land and Resource Management Plans for the Manti-La Sal (1986, as amended) and Uinta (2003, as amended) national forests identify goals for forest health and constraints on resource uses to meet these goals.

Energy Gateway South Transmission Project B1-3 Plan of Development Appendix B1 – Biological Resources Conservation Plan November 2016  USFS Manual 2900, Invasive Species Management, sets forth National Forest System policy, responsibilities, and direction for the prevention, detection, control, and restoration of effects from invasive species (including vertebrates, invertebrates, , and pathogens).

 USFS Manual 2670 directs each Regional Forester to designate sensitive species on public lands administered by the USFS. Per the manual, sensitive species are defined “as plant or animal species identified by a Regional Forester for which population viability is a concern, as evidenced by a significant current or predicted downward trend in population numbers or density, or significant current or predicted downward trends in habitat capability that will reduce an existing distribution of the species.”

 USFS Manual 2670 also establishes the following management direction and objectives for USFS-sensitive species:  Maintain viable populations of all native and desired non-native wildlife, fish, and plant species in habitats distributed throughout their geographic range on USFS-administered lands.  Review programs and activities as part of the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) process, through a BE, to determine their potential effect on sensitive species.  Analyze, if impacts cannot be avoided, the significance of potential adverse effects on the population or its habitat in the area of concern and on the species as a whole.

 Executive Order 11990 (Wetlands) requires federal agencies to minimize the destruction, loss, or degradation of wetlands and to preserve and enhance the natural and beneficial values of wetlands in carrying out the agency's responsibilities.

 BLM UT-IM-2010-071 identifies management actions necessary at some sites to ensure environmentally responsible exploration, authorization, leasing, and development of renewable and nonrenewable energy resources in the ranges of the Gunnison sage-grouse and greater sage- grouse.

 BLM WO-IM 2012-043 provides interim conservation policies and procedures to the BLM field officials to be applied to ongoing and proposed authorizations and activities that affect the greater sage-grouse (Centrocerus urophasianus) and its habitat while the BLM develops and decides how to best incorporate long-term conservation measures into applicable land use plans.

 BLM WY-IM 2013-005 provides guidance for migratory bird conservation policy on Wyoming BLM-administered public lands, including the federal mineral estate.

 BLM WY Sage-grouse IM 2012-019 provides guidance to Wyoming BLM Field Offices on sage- grouse habitat management for proposed activities and resource management planning. It is the policy of Wyoming BLM to manage sage-grouse seasonal habitats and maintain habitat connectivity to support population objectives set by the Wyoming Game and Fish Department.

 In October 2012, the USFS published Interim Conservation Recommendations for Greater Sage- grouse and Greater Sage-grouse Habitat for Regions 1, 2, and 4. These recommendations supplement the recommendations for sage-grouse contained in the Chief’s Letter to Regional Foresters in Regions 1, 2, 4, 5 and 6 for Sage-grouse and Sagebrush Conservation (July 2010). These recommendations also promote consistency in management of activities on USFS land with BLM IM 2012-043.

 Executive Order 13443 (Facilitation of Hunting Heritage and Wildlife Conservation) requires federal agencies to facilitate the expansion and enhancement of hunting opportunities and the management of game species and their habitat.

Energy Gateway South Transmission Project B1-4 Plan of Development Appendix B1 – Biological Resources Conservation Plan November 2016  Upper Colorado Endangered Fish Recovery Program was established in 1988 under a Cooperative Agreement and multi-agency partnership to recover endangered fish in the Upper Colorado River Basin. The Recovery Program establishes Section 7 consultation requirements for water use within the Upper Colorado River Basin.

B1.2.1.1 State Regulations: Wyoming, Colorado, and Utah Wyoming

 The Platte River Recovery Implementation Program was implemented in 1997 through a cooperative agreement between the Department of the Interior and the states of Colorado, Nebraska, and Wyoming (Platte River Recovery Program 2006). The long-term goal of the program is to improve and maintain habitats for target species and other ESA-listed species that occur in the lower Platte River (Platte River Recovery Program 2006).

 Wyoming State Wildlife Action Plan (2005 and revised in 2010) is a coordinated, comprehensive conservation strategy designed to maintain the health and diversity of wildlife, including species with low and declining populations in Wyoming.

 Wyoming State Code Section 23-1-101 defines wildlife as all wild mammals, birds, fish, amphibians, reptiles, crustaceans, and mollusks, designated by the Wyoming Game and Fish Commission and the Wyoming Livestock Board in state.

 Wyoming State Code Section 23-1-103 establishes that all wildlife is the property of the state of Wyoming and directs the control, propagation, management, protection, and regulation of wildlife in Wyoming.

 Wyoming State Code Section 23-1-302 empowers the Wyoming Game and Fish Commission to manage big game hunting seasons, take, and areas in Wyoming and to develop, improve, and maintain lands and for the management and protection of all wildlife.

 Wyoming State Code Section 23-3-108 states it is a violation to take or intentionally destroy the nest or eggs of any nonpredacious bird in Wyoming.

 Wyoming State Code Section 23-3-101 prohibits the take of eagles.

 Wyoming State Code Section 23-3-102 prohibits the take of any big or trophy game animal or gray wolf where classified as a trophy game animal without the proper license or authority.

 Wyoming State Code Section 23-3-103 prohibits the take of any furbearing animal or game bird without the appropriate license in Wyoming.

 Wyoming Sage-grouse Local Working Groups oversee two conservation areas that could be crossed by the Project (from east to west): Bates Hole/Shirley Basin and South-central. These Working Groups have developed a Conservation Plan detailing the natural history, threats, and mitigation measures for sage-grouse in each conservation plan area and guidelines for any Project activities occurring in the area.

 Wyoming Executive Order 2015-4 (Greater Sage-Grouse Core Area Protection) outlines the management of greater sage-grouse, including the designation of core population areas in the state of Wyoming.

Colorado

 Colorado State Wildlife Action Plan (2006) is a comprehensive management strategy developed by Colorado Parks and Wildlife and the State of Colorado to conserve native species populations and habitats and prevent additional federal listings.

Energy Gateway South Transmission Project B1-5 Plan of Development Appendix B1 – Biological Resources Conservation Plan November 2016  Colorado State Code Statute 33-2-101 describes the state's intent to protect wildlife in Colorado under the Nongame, Endangered, or Threatened Species Conservation Act.

 Colorado State Code Statute 33-2-104 regulates the take, possession, transportation, exportation, processing, sale or offering for sale, or shipment of nongame wildlife as may be deemed necessary to manage nongame species in Colorado.

 Colorado Sage-grouse Local Working Groups oversee the Northwest Colorado conservation area, which will be crossed by the Project. Working groups have developed a Conservation Plan detailing the natural history, threats, and mitigation measures for sage-grouse in the conservation plan area and conservation guidelines for any Project activities occurring in the area.

Utah

 Utah State Wildlife Action Plan (2005) is a comprehensive management plan designed to conserve native species populations and habitats in Utah and prevent the need for additional federal listings.

 Utah State Code Section 23-14-1 directs the Utah Division of Wildlife Resources (UDWR) to protect, propagate, manage, conserve, and distribute protected wildlife throughout Utah. This statute also authorizes UDWR to identify and delineate crucial seasonal wildlife habitats.

 Utah Partners in Flight Avian Conservation Strategy, Version 2.0, prioritizes avian species and their habitats and sets objectives designed to determine which species are most in need of immediate and continuing conservation effort. The other purpose of the strategy is to recommend appropriate conservation actions required to accomplish stated objectives.

 Utah Administrative Code R657-48 directs the UDWR to maintain a Utah Sensitive Species List that identifies animal species (1) listed or that are candidates for listing pursuant to the ESA; (2) for which a conservation agreement is in place; or (3) whose population viability is threatened in Utah. Timely and appropriate conservation actions implemented on behalf of species listed on the Utah Sensitive Species List will preclude the need to list these species under the provisions of the federal ESA.

 Conservation Plan for Greater Sage-grouse in Utah was approved by the Governor in April 2013. The plan establishes incentive-based conservation programs for conservation of sage-grouse on private, local government, and State Institutional Trust Lands Administration land and regulatory programs on other state- and federally managed lands. The Conservation Plan also establishes sage-grouse management areas and implements specific management protocols in these areas.

 Utah Executive Order 2015-001 (Implementing the Utah Conservation Plan for Greater Sage- Grouse) directs state agencies to minimize the impact of activities on sage-grouse, consult with the UDWR on decisions that could affect sage-grouse habitat, and incorporate directives from the conservation plan into state operations and report on Utah efforts.

 Utah Sage-grouse Local Working Groups oversee two conservation areas that could be crossed by the Project, Uinta Basin and Castle Country (including the Carbon Conservation Area). Each of these working groups has developed a Conservation Plan detailing the natural history, threats, and mitigation measures for sage-grouse in each conservation plan area and conservation guidelines for any activities occurring in the area.

B1.3 Overview of Biological Resource Issues Biological resource issues were identified throughout the planning stages of the Project in discussions with biologists and botanists from the BLM, USFS, FWS, and other cooperating agencies. The effects of the Project on biological resources were analyzed in the EIS. Additional analysis of potential effects on

Energy Gateway South Transmission Project B1-6 Plan of Development Appendix B1 – Biological Resources Conservation Plan November 2016 biological resources listed under the ESA and designated as sensitive by USFS was conducted in the BA and BE, respectively. Implementation of the conservation measures contained in this plan are required to comply with the terms and conditions of the BLM right-of-way grant, USFS special-use authorization, and BIA encroachment permit and grant of easement as well as the FWS BO.

Biological resources and issues that are addressed in this plan include:

 Loss and fragmentation of native vegetation communities  ESA-listed plant and wildlife species  Plant and wildlife species managed by the BLM or USFS as sensitive species  Raptors and their nesting habitats  Migratory birds  Crucial seasonal habitats for big game

Other important biological concerns were identified during the planning stages of the Project and are addressed in other sections of the POD, including:

 Noxious weeds (refer to Appendix B2 – Noxious Weed Management Plan)  Revegetation (refer to Appendix C1 – Reclamation, Revegetation, and Monitoring Plan Framework)  Streams, wetlands, and riparian areas (refer to Appendix B3 – Water Resources Protection Plan)

For each biological resource discussed in this section, an overview is provided of the resource presence in the Project area and the level of the mitigation hierarchy that the specific measures are intended to achieve. Measures that must be followed to achieve adequate mitigation are discussed in Section B1.4 – Biological Resource Mitigation Measures. For some resources, this section also identifies levels or amounts of acceptable impact and thresholds that must be met during the construction, operation, and maintenance of the Project.

B1.3.1 Special Status Plant and Wildlife Inventory As a condition of the BLM, USFS, and BIA RODs prior to completion of final design of the Project and completion of the POD, field surveys will be required. They will be conducted to identify sensitive biological resources that may be affected by the Project. These studies will identify and map habitats occupied by ESA-listed, BLM-sensitive, and USFS-sensitive plant and wildlife species in and adjacent to the Project area. Where appropriate, field surveys also will identify general areas of suitable habitat for these same species. Once these surveys are conducted, the results will be used to inform the final engineering design of the Project and review and develop additional mitigation measures as needed to comply with agency special status species policies. The results of the surveys and any required mitigation will be incorporated into the POD. The results of these surveys will then be depicted on the maps developed for the POD to support construction of the Project.

The BLM, USFS, PacifiCorp (Company), and other cooperating agencies worked together during development of the EIS, draft POD, and BA to identify surveys that would need to be conducted to collect information for the Geotechnical Investigation prior to completion of the POD and final engineering design of the Project. This group prepared Attachment A - Biological Resources Survey Requirements to document the surveys required and approved methodologies. The survey work for the geotechnical investigation and to support completion of the POD and final engineering design of the Project must be conducted such that adequate time is available for required coordination with the BLM, USFS, and other cooperating agencies to review survey results, provide management recommendations, and develop any additional mitigation measures as needed.

Energy Gateway South Transmission Project B1-7 Plan of Development Appendix B1 – Biological Resources Conservation Plan November 2016 In addition to the surveys conducted to inform the final engineering design of the Project, development of special status species mitigation measures as needed, and preparation of the POD, the agencies will require biological monitoring for some resources as a condition of the BLM, USFS, and BIA RODs. This monitoring is required to account for the annual variation in the abundance and distribution of ESA-listed, BLM-sensitive, and USFS-sensitive species to assist construction crews with identifying and avoiding these species in the field; document the effectiveness of measures taken to avoid, minimize, and compensate for impacts on these species; and identify potential needs for adaptive management. The requirements for biological monitoring are described in Attachment B – Biological Resources Monitoring Plan.

Table B1-1 – Biological Resource Surveys to be Conducted for the Construction Plan of Development provides a list of plant and wildlife species for which surveys will be conducted to inform the final engineering design of the Project, development of special status species mitigation measures as needed, and preparation of the POD and the geographic area where surveys will be conducted for each species. This information is copied from Attachment A – Biological Resources Survey Requirements. The findings from the surveys will be included in this table in the POD. Shapefiles of the areas surveyed also will be required to be included in the Project record. Occasionally, modification of the location of Project features as a result of engineering revisions, or to avoid impacts on environmental resources, could require additional biological resource surveys if features are moved out of areas during the surveys. The shapefiles of areas surveyed included in the Project record should always be used to determine whether biological surveys have been conducted in any particular area.

B1.3.2 Wildlife Variance Management Plan The BLM, the USFS, state wildlife agencies, and PacifiCorp have agreed to prepare a Wildlife Variance Management Plan (Attachment C) to provide a framework and structured decision-making process to engage in flexible management of certain biological resources when conditions warrant. The Wildlife Variance Management Plan will contain procedures for granting exceptions to or modifying certain seasonal and spatial restrictions identified as Project mitigation measures in this Biological Resources Conservation Plan. The Wildlife Variance Management Plan will provide a methodology that facilitates the review and approval or denial of these requests through the Level 2 variance procedure outlined in Appendix A5 – Environmental Compliance Management Plan, Section A5.4.2 – Variance Procedures (Unforeseen Circumstances) of the POD and avoids the need for amendments to the BLM right-of-way grant or USFS special-use authorization.

The Wildlife Variance Management Plan will be included in this Biological Resources Conservation Plan as Attachment C - Wildlife Variance Management Plan. To ensure biological resources are appropriately protected, the Wildlife Variance Management Plan contains:

 Roles and responsibilities of involved parties  Resource conditions that would permit modifications or exceptions to mitigation measures  Procedures for determining resource conditions  Procedures for communicating resource conditions and granting modifications or exceptions to mitigation measures  Procedures for monitoring resource conditions after alterations are granted

Energy Gateway South Transmission Project B1-8 Plan of Development Appendix B1 – Biological Resources Conservation Plan November 2016

TABLE B1-1 BIOLOGICAL RESOURCE SURVEYS TO BE CONDUCTED FOR THE CONSTRUCTION PLAN OF DEVELOPMENT Geographic Area and Year Surveys Species Status Conducted Findings Plants Within 650 feet of work areas, overland travel, and new and improved access Clay phacelia routes within suitable habitat identified To be added upon completion of Endangered (Phacelia argillacea) via pre-survey habitat assessment. surveys Surveys anticipated to be conducted in 2016. Within 300 feet of work areas, overland travel, and new and improved access Clay reed-mustard To be added upon completion of Threatened routes within suitable habitat identified () surveys via habitat assessment. Surveys anticipated to be conducted in 2016. Within 300 feet of work areas, overland travel, and new and improved access routes to determine occupancy prior to Deseret milkvetch construction, or within 400 feet if To be added upon completion of Threatened (Astragalus desereticus) activities are upslope of suitable or surveys occupied habitat within suitable habitat identified via habitat assessment. Surveys anticipated to be conducted in 2016. Within 300 feet of work areas, overland travel, and new and improved access routes within U.S. Fish and Wildlife Shrubby reed-mustard Service (FWS) mapped suitable habitat To be added upon completion of Endangered (Schoenocrambe suffrutescens) near the Badland Cliffs population (i.e., surveys Wrinkles Road) in Duchesne County, Utah. Surveys anticipated to be conducted in 2016. Within 300 feet of work areas, overland travel, and new and improved access Uinta Basin hookless cactus routes within suitable or occupied habitat To be added upon completion of Threatened ( wetlandicus) in Duchesne and Uintah counties, Utah. surveys Surveys anticipated to be conducted in 2016.

Energy Gateway South Transmission Project B1-9 Plan of Development Appendix B1 – Biological Resources Conservation Plan November 2016

TABLE B1-1 BIOLOGICAL RESOURCE SURVEYS TO BE CONDUCTED FOR THE CONSTRUCTION PLAN OF DEVELOPMENT Geographic Area and Year Surveys Species Status Conducted Findings Within 300 feet of work areas, overland travel, and new and improved access Ute ladies'-tresses To be added upon completion of Threatened routes within suitable habitat identified (Spiranthes diluvialis) surveys via habitat assessment. Surveys anticipated to be conducted in 2016. Within 150 feet of work areas, overland travel, and new and improved access Argyle Canyon phacelia Bureau of Land Management To be added upon completion of routes in vicinity of Argyle Canyon in (Phacelia argylensis) (BLM)-sensitive (Utah) surveys Uintah County, Utah. Surveys anticipated to be conducted in 2016. Within 150 feet of work areas, overland travel, and new and improved access routes in areas of modeled potentially Beaver Rim phlox To be added upon completion of BLM-sensitive (Wyoming) suitable habitat; from Wyoming Natural (Phlox pungens) surveys Diversity Database (WYNDD) model in Carbon County, Wyoming. Surveys anticipated to be conducted in 2016. Within 150 feet of work areas, overland Caespitose cat's-eye travel, and access routes in Duchesne To be added upon completion of BLM-sensitive (Colorado) (Cryptantha caespitosa) County, Utah. Surveys anticipated to be surveys conducted in 2016. Within 150 feet of work areas, overland travel, and new and improved access routes within modeled habitat identified Canyon sweet-vetch U.S. Forest Service (USFS)- To be added upon completion of in the Biological Evaluation (BE) in (Hedysarum occidentale var. canone) sensitive surveys Carbon, Emery, and Duchesne counties, Utah. Surveys anticipated to be conducted in 2016. Within 150 feet of work areas, overland travel, and new and improved access Carrington daisy routes within modeled habitat identified To be added upon completion of USFS-sensitive (Erigeron carringtoniae) in the BE in Emery and Sanpete counties, surveys Utah. Surveys anticipated to be conducted in 2016.

Energy Gateway South Transmission Project B1-10 Plan of Development Appendix B1 – Biological Resources Conservation Plan November 2016

TABLE B1-1 BIOLOGICAL RESOURCE SURVEYS TO BE CONDUCTED FOR THE CONSTRUCTION PLAN OF DEVELOPMENT Geographic Area and Year Surveys Species Status Conducted Findings Within 150 feet of work areas, overland travel, and new and improved access Cedar Rim thistle routes in areas of modeled potentially To be added upon completion of BLM-sensitive (Wyoming) (Cirsium aridum) suitable habitat in Carbon and Sweetwater surveys counties, Wyoming. Surveys anticipated to be conducted in 2016. Within 150 feet of work areas, overland travel, and new and improved access Debris milkvetch routes in Uintah and Duchesne counties, To be added upon completion of BLM-sensitive (Colorado) (Astragalus detritalis) Utah, and Moffat County, Colorado. surveys Surveys anticipated to be conducted in 2016. Within 150 feet of work areas, overland travel, and new and improved access Duchesne milkvetch routes in Uintah and Duchesne counties, To be added upon completion of BLM-sensitive (Colorado) (Astragalus duchesnensis) Utah, and Moffat and Rio Blanco surveys counties, Colorado. Surveys anticipated to be conducted in 2016. Within 150 feet of work areas, overland travel, and new and improved access routes in predicted suitable habitat in Gibbens' beardtongue BLM-sensitive (Wyoming, To be added upon completion of Sweetwater and Carbon Counties, (Penstemon gibbensii) Colorado, Utah) surveys Wyoming, and Moffat County, Colorado. Surveys anticipated to be conducted in 2016. Within 150 feet of work areas, overland travel, and new and improved access routes within modeled habitat identified Goodrich's blazingstar BLM-sensitive (Utah), USFS- To be added upon completion of in the BE on USFS- and BLM- ( goodrichii) sensitive surveys administered lands in Duchesne County, Utah. Surveys anticipated to be conducted in 2016.

Energy Gateway South Transmission Project B1-11 Plan of Development Appendix B1 – Biological Resources Conservation Plan November 2016

TABLE B1-1 BIOLOGICAL RESOURCE SURVEYS TO BE CONDUCTED FOR THE CONSTRUCTION PLAN OF DEVELOPMENT Geographic Area and Year Surveys Species Status Conducted Findings Within 300 feet of work areas, overland travel, and new and improved access routes within areas of potentially suitable habitat identified in the WYNDD model, Graham's beardtongue including outcrops of the Parachute Creek To be added upon completion of BLM-sensitive (Colorado, Utah) (Penstemon grahamii) member of the Green River formation in surveys Duchesne and Uintah counties, Utah, and the Raven Ridge area of Rio Blanco County, Colorado. Surveys anticipated to be conducted in 2016. Within 150 feet of work areas, overland travel, and new and improved access routes within modeled habitat identified Green River greenthread BLM-sensitive (Wyoming, Utah), To be added upon completion of in the BE on USFS- and BLM- (Thelesperma caespitosum) USFS-sensitive surveys administered lands in Duchesne County, Utah. Surveys anticipated to be conducted in 2016. Within 300 feet of work areas, overland travel, and new and improved access Horseshoe milkvetch routes within agency-provided suitable To be added upon completion of BLM-sensitive (Colorado, Utah) (Astragalus equisolensis) habitat in the vicinity of Horseshoe Bend surveys in Uintah County, Utah. Surveys anticipated to be conducted in 2016. Within 150 feet of work areas, overland travel, and new and improved access Huber's pepperwort routes in associated sandstone formations To be added upon completion of BLM-sensitive (Utah) (Lepidium huberi) in the Raven Ridge area in Uintah surveys County, Utah. Surveys anticipated to be conducted in 2016. Within 150 feet of work areas, overland travel, and new and improved access Meadow pussytoes routes in areas of potentially suitable To be added upon completion of BLM-sensitive (Wyoming) (Antennaria arcuata) habitat identified in the WYNDD model surveys in Carbon County, Wyoming. Surveys anticipated to be conducted in 2016.

Energy Gateway South Transmission Project B1-12 Plan of Development Appendix B1 – Biological Resources Conservation Plan November 2016

TABLE B1-1 BIOLOGICAL RESOURCE SURVEYS TO BE CONDUCTED FOR THE CONSTRUCTION PLAN OF DEVELOPMENT Geographic Area and Year Surveys Species Status Conducted Findings Within 150 feet of work areas, overland travel, and new and improved access Narrow-stem gilia To be added upon completion of BLM-sensitive (Colorado) routes in Rio Blanco County, Colorado. (Gilia stenothyrsa) surveys Surveys anticipated to be conducted in 2016. Within 150 feet of work areas, overland travel, and new and improved access routes in areas of potentially suitable habitat identified in the WYNDD model Ownbey's thistle in Carbon and Sweetwater counties, To be added upon completion of BLM-sensitive (Wyoming) (Cirsium ownbeyi) Wyoming, and areas of potentially surveys suitable habitat in Rio Blanco and Moffat counties, Colorado, and Uintah County, Utah. Surveys anticipated to be conducted in 2016. Within 150 feet of work areas, overland travel, and new and improved access routes in areas of potentially suitable Persistent- yellowcress To be added upon completion of BLM-sensitive (Wyoming) habitat identified in the WYNDD model (Rorippa calycina) surveys in Carbon and Sweetwater counties, Wyoming. Surveys anticipated to be conducted in 2016. Within 150 feet of work areas, overland travel, and new and improved access Rollins’ cat's-eye routes in portions of the Green River To be added upon completion of BLM-sensitive (Colorado) (Cryptantha rollinsii) Formation in Rio Blanco County, surveys Colorado. Surveys anticipated to be conducted in 2016. Within 150 feet of work areas, overland travel, and new and improved access Spanish bayonet To be added upon completion of BLM-sensitive (Utah) routes in sandy within Uintah and (Yucca harrimaniae var. sterilis) surveys Duchesne counties, Utah. Surveys anticipated to be conducted in 2016.

Energy Gateway South Transmission Project B1-13 Plan of Development Appendix B1 – Biological Resources Conservation Plan November 2016

TABLE B1-1 BIOLOGICAL RESOURCE SURVEYS TO BE CONDUCTED FOR THE CONSTRUCTION PLAN OF DEVELOPMENT Geographic Area and Year Surveys Species Status Conducted Findings Within 150 feet of work areas, overland travel, and new and improved access routes within modeled habitat identified Untermann's daisy BLM-sensitive (Utah), USFS- To be added upon completion of in the BE on USFS- and BLM- (Erigeron untermannii) sensitive surveys administered lands in Duchesne County, Utah. Surveys anticipated to be conducted in 2016. Within 300 feet of work areas, overland travel, and new and improved access routes within areas of potentially suitable White River beardtongue habitat identified in the WYNDD model, To be added upon completion of (Penstemon scariosus var. BLM-sensitive (Utah, Colorado) including outcrops of the Parachute Creek surveys albifluvis) member of the Green River formation in Uintah County, Utah, and western Rio Blanco County, Colorado. Surveys anticipated to be conducted in 2016. Wildlife Work areas, overland travel, and new and Greater sage-grouse BLM-sensitive species, state- improved access routes in designated To be added upon completion of (Centrocercus sensitive species sage-grouse habitat. Surveys anticipated surveys urophasianus) to be conducted in 2016. Within 0.5 mile of suitable habitat identified via habitat assessment Mexican spotted owl Federally threatened; protected by To be added upon completion of generally in the Argyle Canyon area of (Strix occidentalis lucida) the Migratory Bird Treaty Act surveys Utah. Surveys anticipated to be conducted in 2016. Federally threatened; FWS-, BLM-, and state-sensitive species Within 0.5 mile of suitable habitat Yellow-billed cuckoo (Coccyzus (Colorado, Wyoming, and Utah), identified via pre-survey Habitat To be added upon completion of americanus) and USFS-sensitive species; Assessment. Surveys anticipated to be surveys protected by the Migratory Bird conducted in 2016. Treaty Act

Energy Gateway South Transmission Project B1-14 Plan of Development Appendix B1 – Biological Resources Conservation Plan November 2016

TABLE B1-1 BIOLOGICAL RESOURCE SURVEYS TO BE CONDUCTED FOR THE CONSTRUCTION PLAN OF DEVELOPMENT Geographic Area and Year Surveys Species Status Conducted Findings Within 1.0, 0.75, 0.5, or 0.25 mile (depending on the appropriate BLM/FWS field office spatial buffers for each raptor Protected by the Migratory Bird species) around work areas, overland Treaty Act, Bald and Golden Eagle To be added upon completion of Raptor nests travel, and new and improved access Protection Act. Many are BLM- and surveys routes at geotechnical sites where drilling USFS-sensitive species would occur during applicable nesting seasons. Surveys anticipated to be conducted in 2016. Within 0.25, 1.0, or 2.0 miles of work areas, overland travel, and new and Bald Eagle winter and communal Protected by the Migratory Bird improved access routes at geotechnical To be added upon completion of roost areas (Haliaeetus Treaty Act and Bald and Golden sites where drilling would occur near surveys leucocephalus) Eagle Protection Act waterbodies during roosting and concentration periods. Surveys anticipated to be conducted in 2016. Within 100 meters of work areas, overland travel, and new and improved access routes in construction and Species petitioned for listing under geotechnical sites above 7,000 feet, east the Endangered Species Act and of Soldier Summit and adjacent to Kyune listed as BLM-, USFS-, and state- To be added upon completion of Boreal toad (Bufo boreas boreas) and the Utah County/Carbon County line sensitive species; protected by Utah surveys where drilling would occur during the Boreal Toad Conservation Plan breeding or migration seasons. In areas 2005 where suitable habitat is found, surveys will extend to 300 meters. Surveys anticipated to be conducted in 2016. Within 300 feet of work areas, overland FWS species of concern; BLM- and travel, and new and improved access Mountain plover (Charadrius state of Wyoming-sensitive species; routes at geotechnical sites near areas of To be added upon completion of montanus) protected by the Migratory Bird potentially suitable habitat identified in surveys Treaty Act EIS. Surveys anticipated to be conducted in 2016.

Energy Gateway South Transmission Project B1-15 Plan of Development Appendix B1 – Biological Resources Conservation Plan November 2016

TABLE B1-1 BIOLOGICAL RESOURCE SURVEYS TO BE CONDUCTED FOR THE CONSTRUCTION PLAN OF DEVELOPMENT Geographic Area and Year Surveys Species Status Conducted Findings Within 1,320 feet (0.25 mile) of work areas, overland travel, and new and improved access routes in Wyoming; and within 300 feet of work areas, overland Pygmy rabbit (Brachylagus BLM- and state-sensitive species; travel, and new and improved access To be added upon completion of idahoensis) FWS species of concern routes in Colorado and Utah at surveys geotechnical sites near areas of potentially suitable habitat identified in EIS. Surveys anticipated to be conducted in 2016. Within 660 feet of work areas, overland travel, and new and improved access White-tailed prairie dog BLM- and state-sensitive species; routes at geotechnical sites near areas of To be added upon completion of (Cynomys leucurus) FWS species of concern potentially suitable habitat identified in surveys EIS. Surveys anticipated to be conducted in 2016. Within 246 feet (75 meters) of work areas, overland travel, and new and Wyoming pocket gopher BLM- and state-sensitive species; improved access routes at geotechnical To be added upon completion of (Thomomys clusius) FWS species of concern sites near areas of potentially suitable surveys habitat. Surveys anticipated to be conducted in 2016.

Energy Gateway South Transmission Project B1-16 Plan of Development Appendix B1 – Biological Resources Conservation Plan November 2016

B1.3.3 Loss and Fragmentation of Native Vegetation Communities Loss and fragmentation of native vegetation communities is a botanical resource issue identified and analyzed in the EIS. BLM and USFS policy and management plans require the agencies to avoid any unnecessary degradation of federal lands resulting from actions authorized or carried out on federal lands. Due to the limited distribution of riparian and wetland vegetation types in the Project area and their disproportionately high ecological value, agency policies also require special consideration to avoid, minimize, and mitigate for impacts on these vegetation types.

Loss and fragmentation of native vegetation occurs through surface-disturbing activities, including construction of roads, structure work areas, etc. Disturbances, such as the temporary removal or crushing of vegetation, do not result in a total loss; however, if revegetation of these areas is undertaken, the resulting vegetation communities often differ from those that occurred predisturbance. Vegetation communities adjacent to disturbed areas also may differ in structure and composition from those that occurred predisturbance. disturbance and the transportation of of non-native or invasive species by humans and/or livestock may have increased the likelihood of these areas being invaded by non-native species. Recovery of native or desirable vegetation communities following disturbance, especially those in arid ecosystems, may take decades, centuries, or longer (Coffin et al. 1996; Foster et al. 2003; Morris et al. 2011). Additionally, alterations to soil structure and chemistry, nutrient dynamics, hydrology, and plant species composition following disturbance often cause ecosystems to cross thresholds into alternative stable states not likely to resemble historic or preferred conditions (Hobbs et al. 2009).

B1.3.3.1 Results of the Environmental Impact Statement Analysis and the Degree of Allowable Impacts Native vegetation communities are the dominant vegetation cover throughout the Project area. Most vegetation resources are not specifically protected by agency stipulations. However, agencies may not issue use authorizations (including rights-of-way) that will result in undue or unnecessary degradation of resources on federal lands. To meet this standard, the BLM, USFS, and BIA have primarily relied on agency siting decisions made through the NEPA process and the design features of the Project for environmental protection to minimize the loss and fragmentation of native vegetation communities during the construction, operation, and maintenance of the Project. These design features of the Project for environmental protection are consistent with the minimization of impacts required under the mitigation hierarchy.

Implementation of design features of the Project for environmental protection to reduce the loss and fragmentation of native vegetation communities began early in the NEPA process. Consideration of the magnitude of loss and fragmentation of native vegetation communities was a consideration in the selection of a route through the EIS process. Additionally, colocation of the selected route with existing and planned linear infrastructure and sharing of access routes to the extent possible was an important design feature of the Project for environmental protection that minimized the loss and fragmentation of native vegetation communities.

B1.3.4 ESA-listed Plant and Wildlife Species Impacts on ESA-listed plant and wildlife species were identified as an issue for the Project during the EIS process. The BLM, as lead federal agency in preparation of the EIS, engaged in Section 7 consultation with the FWS regarding the effects of the Project on ESA-listed plant and wildlife species. Other federal agencies participating in the Project with a responsibility under the ESA, including the USFS and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, also participated in the consultation. Formal consultation was initiated on July 20, 2015, when the BLM submitted a BA to the FWS. Formal consultation concluded on January 15,

Energy Gateway South Transmission Project B1-17 Plan of Development Appendix B1 – Biological Resources Conservation Plan November 2016

2016, when the FWS provided the BLM with a BO. Field surveys for ESA-listed plants and wildlife species will be required to be conducted for the Project after completion of the EIS and Section 7 consultation, as described in Section B1.3.1 – Special Status Plant and Wildlife Inventory.

Compliance with the results of the Section 7 consultation process, including implementation of conservation measures included in the BA and BO, is required as a condition of the BLM right-of-way grant and USFS special-use authorization. Furthermore, damage or destruction of ESA-listed plants and wildlife or their habitats not specifically authorized by FWS may be punishable under law. In the event that a conservation measure for an ESA-listed plant and wildlife species cannot be followed, a species or critical habitat that was not addressed in the BO becomes listed, or the effects on the species exceed those consulted upon in the BA, the BLM will be required to reinitiate formal consultation with FWS. The consultation process must be complete before any activity that may affect the species may occur.

The ESA does not provide protections for ESA-listed plant species from nonfederal actions occurring on nonfederal lands. The Project occurs near or across suitable habitat for some of the ESA-listed plant species on private or state-administered lands. Due to the federal action associated with the BLM issuing a right-of-way grant and USFS issuing a special-use authorization for the Project on federal lands, the entire Project is considered an action authorized by a federal agency. Therefore, all ESA-listed plant species were addressed Project-wide in Section 7 consultation and the terms of the BO are legally binding regardless of land ownership.

A summary of the effect determinations from the Section 7 consultation for ESA-listed plant and wildlife species is included in Table B1-2 – Determinations for Plant and Wildlife Species and Critical Habitat from the Biological Assessment. Additional species are listed in counties crossed by the Project. However, these species are not anticipated to be present in the Project area and, therefore, were not included in the formal consultation.

TABLE B1-2 DETERMINATIONS FOR PLANT AND WILDLIFE SPECIES AND CRITICAL HABITAT FROM THE BIOLOGICAL ASSESSMENT Species Listing Status Determination Plants Clay phacelia May affect, not likely to adversely Endangered Phacelia argillacea affect Clay reed-mustard May affect, not likely to adversely Threatened Schoenocrambe argillacea affect Deseret milkvetch May affect, not likely to adversely Threatened Astragalus desereticus affect Shrubby reed-mustard May affect, not likely to adversely Endangered Schoenocrambe suffrutescens affect Uinta Basin hookless cactus Threatened May affect, likely to adversely affect Sclerocactus wetlandicus Ute ladies'-tresses May affect, not likely to adversely Threatened Spiranthes diluvialis affect Western prairie fringed orchid Threatened May affect, likely to adversely affect Platanthera praeclara Fish Bonytail Endangered May affect, likely to adversely affect Gila elegans Designated critical habitat May affect, likely to adversely affect Colorado pikeminnow Endangered May affect, likely to adversely affect Ptychocheilus lucius Designated critical habitat May affect, likely to adversely affect

Energy Gateway South Transmission Project B1-18 Plan of Development Appendix B1 – Biological Resources Conservation Plan November 2016

TABLE B1-2 DETERMINATIONS FOR PLANT AND WILDLIFE SPECIES AND CRITICAL HABITAT FROM THE BIOLOGICAL ASSESSMENT Species Listing Status Determination Humpback chub Endangered May affect, likely to adversely affect Gila cypha Designated critical habitat May affect, likely to adversely affect June sucker1 May affect, not likely to adversely Endangered Chasmistes liorus affect Pallid sturgeon Endangered May affect, likely to adversely affect Scaphirhynchus albus Razorback sucker Endangered May affect, likely to adversely affect Xyrauchen texanus Designated critical habitat May affect, likely to adversely affect Birds Least tern, Interior population Endangered May affect, likely to adversely affect Sternula antillarum Mexican spotted owl1 May affect, not likely to adversely Threatened Strix occidentalis lucida affect Piping plover, Northern Great Plains Threatened May affect, likely to adversely affect population Designated critical habitat No effect Charadrius melodus circumcinctus Whooping crane Endangered May affect, likely to adversely affect Grus americana Designated critical habitat May affect, likely to adversely affect May affect, not likely to adversely Yellow-billed cuckoo, Western Threatened United States Distinct Population affect Segment1 Coccyzus americanus Proposed critical habitat No effect Mammals Nonessential Experimental Black-footed ferret Not likely to jeopardize Population (NEP) Mustela nigripes Endangered No effect Canada lynx1 May affect, not likely to adversely Threatened Lynx canadensis affect Endangered, nonessential Not likely to jeopardize Gray wolf population (Wyoming) Canis lupus Endangered (Colorado and May affect, not likely to adversely Utah) affect NOTE: 1Critical habitat has been designated or proposed for these species, but it is located outside the Project area. The primary issue regarding ESA-listed plant species and the Project is loss or damage of ESA-listed plants. Another important issue is loss, degradation, and fragmentation of habitats that support these species.

Project activities negatively affect ESA-listed plant habitat and populations where vegetation removal in these areas is required. Significant concerns for ESA-listed plants identified through the EIS and Section 7 consultation process include:

 Most ESA-listed plants rely on unique soil, vegetation, precipitation, and other habitat characteristics, and restoration of these characteristics in some instances can be difficult.

 Construction in ESA-listed plant habitat can increase habitat fragmentation, which could limit gene flow between populations, decrease genetic diversity in populations, and potentially negatively affect long-term viability of populations (Ellstrand and Elam 1993).

Energy Gateway South Transmission Project B1-19 Plan of Development Appendix B1 – Biological Resources Conservation Plan November 2016

 Clearing of vegetation during construction could result in increased soil erosion, which could result in the deposition of soil over populations and habitat for ESA-listed plants during extreme precipitation events.

 Disturbance that results in the loss of flowering plants adjacent to ESA-listed plant populations could reduce the attractiveness of an area to and subsequently limit reproductive output of individual ESA-listed plants.

 Increases in fire frequencies known to result from invasion of certain invasive plant species could remove ESA-listed plant populations and habitat and favor the continued dominance of invasive species in the Project area.

 The drift of herbicide from the treatment of noxious weeds in adjacent areas could inadvertently cause mortality of ESA-listed plants.

 Increased construction-related and private vehicle use on new and existing roads could result in greater dust deposition, which will inhibit photosynthetic ability, reproductive ability, and various metabolic processes of individual plants (Farmer 1993).

 Road construction in the Project area also could increase access to ESA-listed plant species habitat and individuals, which may increase illegal collection of commercially desirable ESA- listed plants. The primary issues regarding ESA-listed wildlife species and the Project are injury or mortality during construction or operation of the Project, loss of habitat resulting from ground-disturbing activities or other modifications of the landscape, and disturbance from human presence or construction noise. Injury or mortality to ESA-listed wildlife is primarily a concern in areas where ground disturbance will occur or where existing access roads will be used by Project vehicles. Project activities can negatively impact ESA-listed wildlife habitat and populations, especially in areas where vegetation removal is required. Human presence and construction noise in ESA-listed wildlife habitat may result in habitat avoidance and, thus, functional habitat loss and fragmentation.

B1.3.4.1 Clay Phacelia Background and Habitat Requirements Clay phacelia is one of the rarest plant species in the United States and is known to occur in the vicinity of the Project near Soldier Summit in Utah County, Utah. The species population is stable but consists of about 200 individuals. The species is listed as endangered under the ESA.

Clay phacelia grows on steep slopes in sparsely populated pinyon-juniper and mountain brush communities (Welsh et al. 1975). One of the largest identified populations of this plant is located on a slope with a 70 percent grade. The substrate of habitat for clay phacelia is shaley clay colluviums (talus) of the Green River Formation (Atwood 1975). As a result, the loose shale on the surface is continually sloughing down the face of the slopes. The majority of the plants grow on slopes facing west or southeast at elevations between 6,000 and 7,000 feet. Populations are not likely to exist at elevations greater than 8,000 feet (Utah Native Plant Society 1989). Habitat areas are free of snow at least once during the winter and are typically dry in early spring. Associated vegetation includes skunkbush sumac () and Juneberry () with degraded sagebrush steppe at the base of the slope (FWS 1982).

Twelve reintroduction sites for clay phacelia are located in Spanish Fork Canyon on USFS-administered lands. The U.S. Geological Survey has collected and cultivated clay phacelia seeds in a greenhouse for use in reintroduction of the species at four of these sites. The USFS has documented emergence of plants

Energy Gateway South Transmission Project B1-20 Plan of Development Appendix B1 – Biological Resources Conservation Plan November 2016

at three of the four reintroduction sites; however, only one individual has been observed as having completed the biennial life cycle and is successfully producing seeds.

Status of the Species in the Project Area and Survey Results All known clay phacelia locations and reintroduction sites are found from between 0.5 to 1.2 miles from the centerline of the Project in Spanish Fork Canyon in Utah County, Utah (Utah Natural Heritage Program 2012). All known locations of this species and several reintroduction sites are located on slopes to the northeast of U.S. Highway 6 and a railroad line and southwest of the centerline. Additional reintroduction sites are found in Tie Fork Canyon to the northeast of U.S. Highway 6 and the Project.

Approximately 1,348 acres of clay phacelia potential habitat was modeled by the USFS in the area of known locations in Spanish Fork Canyon in Utah using habitat requirements in published literature (USFS 2013). Approximately 1 mile of USFS-modeled habitat for clay phacelia is crossed by the right- of-way and a large portion of the modeled habitat is located within 1 mile of the Project.

Pedestrian surveys will be conducted prior to completion of the POD within 650 feet of all Project features that cross field-verified suitable clay phacelia habitat. [Survey results will be added when the surveys have been completed.]

Consultation Findings The BA prepared by the BLM found that the Project may affect, but is not likely to adversely affect, clay phacelia. In their letter of concurrence for informal consultation for the Project (dated January 15, 2016), the FWS concurred that the Project as proposed may affect, but is not likely to adversely affect, clay phacelia.

These findings assumed that all Project activities will avoid all occupied clay phacelia sites and reintroduction areas (regardless of occupancy) by a minimum of 650 feet. Furthermore, no more than 20 acres of modeled clay phacelia habitat may be disturbed (either temporarily or permanently) by the Project, and all clay phacelia conservation measures must be implemented to eliminate other concerns, such as dust deposition and erosion.

Monitoring Requirements Construction monitoring and resource monitoring to verify that the results of the surveys conducted to inform the engineering design and POD are accurate at the time of construction will be required for clay phacelia. [Monitoring requirements will be added or updated when the surveys have been completed. Refer to Attachment B – Biological Resources Monitoring Plan Framework.]

B1.3.4.2 Clay Reed-mustard Background and Habitat Requirements Clay reed-mustard is known to occur in the vicinity of the Project near the Green River in Uintah County, Utah. Most known sites contain fewer than 200 individuals. The species is listed as threatened under the ESA. Critical habitat has not been designated for the species. Clay reed-mustard grows in mixed salt desert shrub communities, generally on north-facing slopes composed of clay soils rich with gypsum overlain with sandstone talus from the zone of contact between the Uinta and Green River geologic formations. Associated vegetation includes crispleaf buckwheat (Eriogonum corymbosum), Torrey’s jointfir ( torreyana), shadscale (), valley saltbush (Atriplex cuneata ssp. cuneata), and saline wildrye (Leymus salinus) (UDWR 2005).

Energy Gateway South Transmission Project B1-21 Plan of Development Appendix B1 – Biological Resources Conservation Plan November 2016

Status of the Species in the Project Area and Survey Results There are six known populations of clay reed-mustard within a 19-mile range spanning the west side of the Green River to the east side of Willow Creek in southwestern Uintah County, Utah. The total population is estimated from approximately 5,300 to 7,450 plants (FWS 2011a).

The Project crosses approximately 4 miles of potential habitat for clay reed-mustard and is located in proximity to two known populations.

The route crosses the King’s Bottom population of clay reed-mustard in the area east of the crossing of the Green River (Link U400) (FWS 2011a). Several known locations of clay reed-mustard are located on steep slopes less than 0.2 mile from the Project in this area. The existing Moon Bottom Road is located within the boundaries of the King’s Bottom population and crosses approximately a 0.3 mile upslope of known clay reed-mustard locations. The boundary of the Ray’s Bottom population of clay reed-mustard is approximately 0.1 mile south of the Project (Link U400), with known locations being approximately 0.4 mile south of the centerline (FWS 2011a). [Survey results will be added when the surveys have been completed.]

Consultation Findings The BA prepared by the BLM found that the Project may affect, but is not likely to adversely affect, clay reed-mustard. In their letter of concurrence for informal consultation for the Project (dated January 15, 2016), the FWS concurred that the Project as proposed may affect, but is not likely to adversely affect, clay reed-mustard. These findings assumed that all Project activities will avoid all occupied clay reed- mustard habitat by a minimum of 300 feet. Furthermore, no more than 75 acres of modeled clay reed- mustard habitat may be disturbed (either temporarily or permanently) by the Project, and all conservation measures listed below must be implemented to eliminate other concerns, such as dust deposition and erosion.

Monitoring Requirements In addition to the monitoring required by the clay reed-mustard conservation measures, construction monitoring and resource monitoring will be required to verify that the results of surveys conducted to inform the engineering design and POD are accurate at the time of construction for clay reed-mustard. [Monitoring requirements will be added or updated when the surveys have been completed. Refer to Attachment B – Biological Resources Monitoring Plan Framework.]

B1.3.4.3 Deseret Milkvetch Background and Habitat Requirements Deseret milkvetch is known to occur in the vicinity of the Project on the east side of Thistle Creek Valley near the town of Birdseye in Utah County (UDWR 2005). The known population consists of an estimated 86,775 to 98,818 individuals growing on 146 acres on both state and privately owned land (FWS 2011b). Deseret milkvetch was also found in this vicinity on USFS land during surveys for the TransWest Express Transmission Line Project (SWCA Environmental Consultants 2015). The species is listed as threatened under the ESA. Critical habitat has not been designated for this species.

Deseret milkvetch habitat is characterized as an open-to-sparse juniper-sagebrush community on open, steep, naturally disturbed south- and west- (rarely north) facing slopes of sandy-gravelly soils of the Moroni Formation (UDWR 2005). On west-facing road cuts, the individuals tend to grow larger. The vegetation is dominated by pinyon and Utah juniper. Other associated vegetation includes sagebrush, scrub oak, Indian ricegrass, antelope bitterbrush, and plateau beardtongue (Penstemon scariosus) (64 Federal Register [FR] 56590).

Energy Gateway South Transmission Project B1-22 Plan of Development Appendix B1 – Biological Resources Conservation Plan November 2016

Status of the Species in the Project Area and Survey Results Occupied habitat and locations of Deseret milkvetch are found from between approximately 0.3 to 1.3 miles east of the centerline of the agency-preferred route (Link U621) in Thistle Creek Valley near the town of Birdseye (UDWR 2005). These locations and occupied habitat comprise the only known population of Deseret milkvetch. The Project in this area is higher in elevation than habitat and locations of this species but is not immediately upslope of these areas. Occupied habitat for Deseret milkvetch is not directly crossed by the Project centerline; however, occupied habitat is located immediately adjacent to and potentially in an access road on UDWR property (Blind Canyon Road). [Survey results will be added when the surveys have been completed.]

Consultation Findings The BA prepared by the BLM found that the Project may affect, but is not likely to adversely affect, Deseret milkvetch. In their letter of concurrence for informal consultation for the Project (dated January 15, 2016), the FWS concurred that the Project as proposed may affect, but is not likely to adversely affect, Deseret milkvetch. These findings assumed all Project activities will avoid all occupied Deseret milkvetch sites and reintroduction areas (regardless of occupancy) by a minimum of 300 feet (or 400 feet if the disturbance is upslope). Additionally, the consultation requires the access road on UDWR property (Blind Canyon Road) will not be used to access the Project for any construction, operation, or maintenance needs. Occupied Deseret milkvetch habitat must not be disturbed (either temporarily or permanently) by the Project, and all Deseret milkvetch conservation measures must be implemented to eliminate other concerns, such as dust deposition and erosion.

Monitoring Requirements In addition to the monitoring required by Deseret milkvetch Conservation Measures, construction monitoring and resource monitoring will be required to verify that the results of surveys conducted to inform the engineering design and POD are accurate at the time of construction for Deseret milkvetch. [Monitoring requirements will be added or updated when the surveys have been completed. Refer to Attachment B – Biological Resources Monitoring Plan Framework.]

B1.3.4.4 Shrubby Reed-mustard Background and Habitat Requirements Shrubby reed-mustard is confined to localized geological formations of buff-colored shale of the Green River Foundation in the Uinta Basin of eastern Utah (Duchesne and Uintah counties). The species is listed as endangered under the ESA. Critical habitat has not been designated for this species.

Shrubby reed-mustard is found in desert shrub communities with sparse juniper and pinyon pine trees. It grows on clay soils with white shale. In contrast to the other listed Schoenocrambe species, shrubby reed- mustard generally grows on level to moderately sloping round surfaces. The soil is derived from the Evacuation Creek Member of the Green River geological formation at an elevation of 5,400 to 6,000 feet (FWS 1994).

Status of the Species in the Project Area and Survey Results There are currently seven known populations of shrubby reed-mustard. Four populations lie between Hill Creek and Willow Creek (Big Pack Mountain, Thorn Ranch, Johnson Draw, and Agency Draw) totaling approximately 2,440 individuals. Two populations are located on the west side of Hill Creek (Gray Knolls and Dog Knoll) and comprise approximately 320 individuals. A single population exists in Duchesne County approximately 15 miles from the other populations. It is located approximately 1.5 miles north of

Energy Gateway South Transmission Project B1-23 Plan of Development Appendix B1 – Biological Resources Conservation Plan November 2016

the junction of Nine Mile Creek and Daddy Canyon. This population (Badlands Cliff/Wrinkles Road) has a population of approximately 170 individuals (FWS 2010).

Shrubby reed-mustard potential habitat and occupied habitat has been mapped by the BLM in the area south of Link U400 in the Uinta Basin. Portions of mapped shrubby reed-mustard potential habitat are located approximately 0.5 mile from the centerline of the agency-preferred route, but no mapped potential habitat is directly crossed by the agency-preferred route centerline. The boundary of the Badlands Cliff population of shrubby reed-mustard is located approximately 0.7 mile southeast of the centerline of the agency-preferred route (Link U400) on moderately steep slopes in the area of the West Tavaputs Plateau, with mapped locations approximately 1.5 miles southeast of the centerline. Wrinkles Road crosses mapped shrubby reed-mustard potential habitat and also crosses within 0.1 mile downslope of the Badlands Cliff population. [Survey results will be added when the surveys have been completed.]

Consultation Findings The BA prepared by the BLM found that the Project may affect, but is not likely to adversely affect, shrubby reed-mustard. In their letter of concurrence for informal consultation for the Project (dated January 15, 2016), the FWS concurred that the Project as proposed may affect, but is not likely to adversely affect, shrubby reed-mustard. These findings assumed that all Project activities will not create surface disturbances within 300 feet of occupied shrubby reed-mustard habitat and that the Wrinkles Road would not be used during construction, operation, or maintenance of the Project. Occupied shrubby reed- mustard habitat must not be disturbed (either temporarily or permanently) by the Project, and all shrubby reed-mustard conservation measures must be implemented to eliminate other concerns, such as dust deposition and erosion.

Monitoring Requirements Construction monitoring and resource monitoring will be required to verify that the results of surveys conducted to inform the engineering design and POD are accurate at the time of construction for shrubby reed-mustard. [Monitoring requirements will be added or updated when the surveys have been completed. Refer to Attachment B – Biological Resources Monitoring Plan Framework.]

B1.3.4.5 Uinta Basin Hookless Cactus Background and Habitat Requirements Uinta Basin hookless cactus is known to occur in the vicinity of the Project in Duchesne and Uinta counties, Utah. This species is listed as threatened under the ESA. Critical habitat has not been designated for the species.

Uinta Basin hookless cactus is found in salt desert shrub communities and pinyon-juniper woodlands on river benches, valley slopes, and rolling hills. It is found on Quaternary and Tertiary alluvial soils weathered from the Uinta and Green River formations that are fine textured, dry, and overlain with cobble and pebble (BLM 2008b). The cactus is more abundant on south-facing slopes with up to a 30 percent grade at an elevation of 4,500 to 5,900 feet. Associated vegetation includes shadscale, galleta, black sage, and Indian rice grass (FWS 1990).

Status of the Species in the Project Area and Survey Results Current population estimates are at about 30,000 individuals over a range that is approximately 60 miles long and 25 miles wide. Individuals are patchily to densely distributed near the confluence of the Green, White, and Duchesne rivers near Ouray National Wildlife Refuge and the town of Ouray, Utah, south along the Green River to the vicinity of Sand Wash, including concentrations near the mouth of the Pariette Draw (FWS 1990).

Energy Gateway South Transmission Project B1-24 Plan of Development Appendix B1 – Biological Resources Conservation Plan November 2016

The centerline of the agency-preferred route crosses 36 miles of potential habitat for Uinta Basin hookless cactus and also crosses the Bonanza, White River, and Middle Green Level 1 and Level 2 Sclerocactus core areas identified by the FWS. Approximately 3 miles of Level 1 Sclerocactus core areas and 4 miles of Level 2 Sclerocactus core areas will be crossed by the centerline of the agency-preferred route.

Several known Uinta Basin hookless cactus populations are located adjacent to or in proximity to the Project. Many roads that could be used for Project access cross through potential habitat, Sclerocactus core areas, and in proximity to known plant locations. Known locations of the species have been identified through surveys largely associated with oil and gas and pipeline development in these areas. Surveys for the Project have not been conducted, though given the amount of habitat crossed and known plant density in core areas, it is likely cactus will be located in and adjacent to the right-of-way. Additionally, several Uinta Basin hookless cactus individuals that were transplanted as mitigation for previous pipeline projects are known to be located between 0.1 and 0.5 mile of the Project. [Survey results will be added when the surveys have been completed.]

Consultation Findings The BA prepared by the BLM found that the Project may affect, and is likely to adversely affect Uinta Basin hookless cactus due to the effects of loss or degradation of suitable habitat; effects on individuals during relocation; and the effects of dust, noxious weed invasion, and soil disturbance on existing populations. The BO prepared by the FWS found that the Project is not likely to jeopardize the continued existence of Uinta Basin hookless cactus.

These findings assumed that no more than 648 acres of modeled Uinta Basin hookless cactus habitat, 58 acres of Level 1 Sclerocactus core areas, and 64 acres of Level 2 Sclerocactus core areas may be disturbed (either temporarily or permanently) by the Project. Furthermore, the Project must be designed to minimize impacts on Uinta Basin hookless cactus to the extent feasible, including avoidance of plants by 300 feet where possible. Any cacti that cannot be avoided and will be located in the disturbance footprint of the Project must be transplanted and monitored, as outlined in the BA. Furthermore, when requested and based on analysis, PacifiCorp will make a monetary contribution to the FWS Sclerocactus Mitigation Fund on behalf of the Project. Additionally, all Uinta Basin hookless cactus conservation measures must be implemented to eliminate other concerns, such as dust deposition and erosion.

Monitoring Requirements In addition to the monitoring required by Uinta Basin hookless cactus conservation measures, construction monitoring and resource monitoring will be required to verify that the results of surveys conducted to inform the engineering design and POD are accurate at the time of construction for Uinta Basin hookless cactus. [Monitoring requirements will be added or updated when the surveys have been completed. Refer to Attachment B – Biological Resources Monitoring Plan Framework.]

B1.3.4.6 Ute Ladies'-tresses Background and Habitat Requirements Ute ladies’-tresses is known to exist in three general areas: on the eastern slope of the Rocky Mountains, the Uinta Basin, and near the western base of the Wasatch Mountains. Near the Rocky Mountains, the species is found in north-central and central Colorado (Clear Creek, Jefferson, Boulder, Larimer, and possibly Moffat counties), east-central Idaho (Bonneville and Jefferson counties), southwestern Montana (Beaverhead, Broadwater, Gallatin, Jefferson, and Madison counties) and east-central and southeastern corner of Wyoming (Converse, Goshen, Laramie, and Niobrara counties), and downstream in western Nebraska (Sioux, Washington, and Okanogan counties). In the Uinta Basin, the species is associated with streams and rivers of the Upper Colorado River drainage. Near the Wasatch Mountains, the species is

Energy Gateway South Transmission Project B1-25 Plan of Development Appendix B1 – Biological Resources Conservation Plan November 2016

generally found in the eastern Great Basin (Utah, Salt Lake, Weber, and Tooele counties), in the Wyoming Basin (Daggett County), and in the Colorado Plateau (Garfield and Wayne counties) (FWS 1995).

Ute ladies’-tresses is known to occur in the vicinity of the Project in the Uinta Basin and near the western base of the Wasatch Mountains. The species is listed as threatened under the ESA. Critical habitat has not been designated for the species.

Ute ladies’-tresses is endemic to moist or very wet meadows near springs, lakes, or perennial streams. It also is found in abandoned stream meanders that retain ample groundwater. It is found at elevations ranging from 4,300 to 7,000 feet. The species is generally found in areas with relatively open vegetation, although some individuals have been observed in the riparian woodlands of eastern Utah and parts of Colorado. Populations generally are small and located in scattered groups occupying small areas in the riparian system (FWS 1995).

Status of the Species in the Project Area and Survey Results The closest known population of Ute ladies’-tresses in Wyoming is 21 miles from the Project. In Utah, a population of Ute ladies’-tresses is located approximately 3.5 miles from the centerline of the Project in the area of Diamond Fork near the town of Thistle.

In total, the agency-preferred route will cross approximately 1 mile of modeled potential habitat for Ute ladies’-tresses. However, this is likely an overestimation of actual length of suitable habitat crossed due to the limitations of desktop habitat modeling. [Survey results will be added when the surveys have been completed.]

Consultation Findings The BA prepared by the BLM found that the Project may affect, but is not likely to adversely affect, Ute ladies’-tresses. In their letter of concurrence for informal consultation for the Project (dated January 15, 2016), the FWS concurred that the Project may affect, but is not likely to adversely affect, Ute ladies’- tresses. These findings assume that all Project activities will avoid all occupied Ute ladies’-tresses sites by a minimum of 300 feet. Furthermore, all Ute ladies’-tresses conservation measures will be implemented to eliminate other concerns, such as dust deposition and erosion.

Monitoring Requirements In addition to the monitoring required by Ute ladies’-tresses conservation measures, construction monitoring and resource monitoring will be required to verify that the results of surveys conducted to inform the engineering design and POD are accurate at the time of construction for Ute ladies’-tresses. [Monitoring requirements will be added or updated when the surveys have been completed. Refer to Attachment B – Biological Resources Monitoring Plan Framework.]

B1.3.4.7 Endangered Species Act-listed Colorado River Fish Species Background and Habitat Requirements Colorado River ESA-listed fish species that could be affected by the Project include the bonytail chub, Colorado pikeminnow, humpback chub, and razorback sucker (Table B1-2 – Determinations for Plant and Wildlife Species and Critical Habitat from the Biological Assessment). All are listed as endangered under the ESA.

The bonytail chub, Colorado pikeminnow, humpback chub, and razorback sucker and their designated critical habitat are all present in the Project area in the Green, White, and Yampa watersheds. All of these

Energy Gateway South Transmission Project B1-26 Plan of Development Appendix B1 – Biological Resources Conservation Plan November 2016

species and their designated critical habitat also are present in the Colorado River watershed downstream from the Project.

Status of the Species in the Project Area and Survey Results No surveys for Colorado River ESA-listed fish species will be conducted for the Project. Bonytail chub and humpback chub are present in the Yampa and Green rivers, while Colorado pikeminnow and razorback sucker are present in the Yampa, Green, and White rivers. Designated critical habitat for Colorado pikeminnow and razorback sucker are crossed by the Project in the following locations:

 Yampa River, Moffat County, Colorado (Colorado pikeminnow)  White River, Uintah County, Utah (Colorado pikeminnow)  Green River, Uintah County, Utah (Colorado pikeminnow and razorback sucker)

Consultation Findings The BA prepared by the BLM found that the Project may affect, and is likely to adversely affect, bonytail chub, Colorado pikeminnow, humpback chub, and razorback sucker and their designated critical habitats. The BO prepared by the FWS found that the Project may affect, and is likely to adversely affect, bonytail chub, Colorado pikeminnow, humpback chub, and razorback sucker and their designated critical habitats due to the associated 60.6 acre-feet average annual water depletion over the 3-year construction period for the Project. The consultation findings for bonytail chub, Colorado pikeminnow, humpback chub, and razorback sucker and their designated critical habitats were based on estimates of water use and the anticipated sources of this water as provided by the Company during the consultation process (Table B1-3 – Estimated Water Use for Construction of the Project).

TABLE B1-3 ESTIMATED WATER USE FOR CONSTRUCTION OF THE PROJECT Water Use for Water Use for Water Use for Ancillary Miles Foundations Dust Control Facilities Total Basin Crossed (acre-feet) (acre-feet) (acre-feet) (acre-feet)

North Platte River 60 2.2 28.5 30.7

Great Divide Closed 20 0.7 9.3 10.0 Basin (east) Total depletions to be addressed through the Platte River Recovery Implementation 40.7 Program Great Divide Closed 20 0.7 9.3 10.0 Basin (west) Muddy Creek 20 0.8 9.6 10.3

Little Snake River 56 2.0 26.5 17.0 45.6 Lower Yampa River 19 0.7 9.3 10.0

Lower White River 68 2.5 32.0 25.5 62.0 Lower Green River 97 3.6 46.0 44.4

Total depletions to be addressed through the Upper Colorado River Endangered Fish 181.7 Recovery Program Jordan River1 61 2.3 29.0 31.3

No mechanism to address depletions exists in the Jordan River Basin. NOTE: Due to rounding, the water use for foundations and water use for dust control columns may not add to the total acre- feet.

Energy Gateway South Transmission Project B1-27 Plan of Development Appendix B1 – Biological Resources Conservation Plan November 2016

Detailed engineering and structure design for each river crossing with designated critical habitat is intended to ensure that species are not affected and placement of structures in designated critical habitat is avoided to the extent feasible. The level of avoidance required at each crossing of designated critical habitat without requiring reinitiation of Section 7 consultation includes:

 Yampa River, Moffat County, Colorado (Colorado pikeminnow) – A single transmission line structure would be required in designated critical habitat for the Colorado pikeminnow (defined as the 100-year floodplain of the Yampa River) on the north bank of the Yampa River. Each structure requires a temporary work area of 1.4 acres and a permanent foundation of approximately 0.1 acre. This structure would be reached by overland travel of up to 1,300 feet in the floodplain, and no permanent ground disturbance would be required for an access road.

 White River, Uintah County, Utah (Colorado pikeminnow) – Designated critical habitat (the 100- year floodplain of the White River) will be spanned and ground disturbance within the floodplain must be avoided.

 Green River, Uintah County, Utah (Colorado pikeminnow and razorback sucker) – Designated critical habitat (the 100-year floodplain of the Green River) will be spanned and ground disturbance within the floodplain must be avoided.

Monitoring Requirements There are no species-specific monitoring requirements for ESA-listed fish species. Monitoring requirements for tracking Project-related water use for all ESA-listed Platte and Colorado River species and designated critical habitats are included in Appendix C7 – Water Use Plan Framework.

B1.3.4.8 June Sucker Background and Habitat Requirements The June sucker is listed as endangered under the ESA. The species is restricted to Utah Lake and the Lake’s lower tributaries. Critical habitat has been designated in the lower reaches of the Provo River, outside of the Project Area.

Status of the Species in the Project Area and Survey Results No surveys will be conducted for the Project for the June sucker. The June sucker is restricted to Utah Lake and lower tributaries to the lake. The Project crosses the Spanish Fork River and its tributaries, which flow into Utah Lake. June suckers and designated critical habitat are not present in any location that will be directly crossed by the Project.

Consultation Findings The BA found that the Project may affect, but is not likely to adversely affect, June sucker. In their letter of concurrence for informal consultation for the Project (dated January 15, 2016), the FWS concurred that the Project as proposed may affect, but is not likely to adversely affect, June sucker. For June sucker, consultation findings assume the potential effect of sedimentation is discountable, as wildlife conservation measures will be applied during all Project activities to minimize ground disturbance and effects on water quality and to ensure compliance with all applicable laws and policies. The potential effect of water depletion is assumed to be insignificant as the volume of water estimated to be required from the Utah Lake watershed in the Jordan River basin (31 acre-feet) is small and is likely to be spread over multiple years and locations.

Energy Gateway South Transmission Project B1-28 Plan of Development Appendix B1 – Biological Resources Conservation Plan November 2016

Monitoring Requirements There are no species-specific monitoring requirements for June sucker.

B1.3.4.9 Platte River Species – Least Tern, Piping Plover, Pallid Sturgeon, Whooping Crane, Western Prairie Fringed Orchid Background and Habitat Requirements The least tern, piping plover, pallid sturgeon, Western prairie fringed orchid, and whooping crane are not known to exist in the Project area. However, populations of these species are found in Nebraska in the Platte River watershed downstream from the Project. The FWS addresses the effects of water depletions for Platte River species during Section 7 consultation through a programmatic BO (FWS 2006). Potential effects of the Project are entirely related to water depletions and are identical for all species; thus, all species are addressed together here.

Status of the Species in the Project Area and Survey Results No surveys will be conducted for the Project for the Platte River species. The least tern, piping plover, pallid sturgeon, Western prairie fringed orchid, and whooping crane are not known to exist in the Project area. However, populations of these species are found in Nebraska in the Platte River watershed downstream from the Project.

Consultation Findings The BA prepared by the BLM found that the Project may affect, and is likely to adversely affect, least tern, piping plover, pallid sturgeon, Western prairie fringed orchid, and whooping crane, as well as designated critical habitat for whooping crane. The BO prepared by the FWS found that the Project is not likely to jeopardize the continued existence of the federally endangered whooping crane, interior least tern, and pallid sturgeon, or the federally threatened northern Great Plains population of the piping plover, or western prairie fringed orchid. The BO prepared by the FWS also found that the Project is also not likely to destroy or adversely modify designated critical habitat for the whooping crane.

The consultation finding was based on estimates of water use and the anticipated sources of this water as provided by the Company during the consultation process. The findings also assume that the water use for the Project in the Platte River watershed will be from existing sources already subject to Section 7 consultation and covered under the Platte River Recovery Implementation Program.

Monitoring Requirements There are no species-specific monitoring requirements for least tern, piping plover, pallid sturgeon, Western prairie fringed orchid, and whooping crane. Monitoring requirements for tracking Project-related water use for all ESA-listed Platte River species are included in Appendix C7 – Water Use Plan Framework.

B1.3.4.10 Mexican Spotted Owl Background and Habitat Requirements The Mexican spotted owl is listed as threatened under the ESA. Designated critical habitat is located in Utah, Colorado, , and , outside of the Project area.

Spotted owls are usually found in steep canyons with mature or old-growth forest, but they also may be found in canyons with steep cliffs and relatively little forest habitat associated with a perennial water source nearby. In Utah, Mexican spotted owls primarily use deep, steep-walled canyons and hanging

Energy Gateway South Transmission Project B1-29 Plan of Development Appendix B1 – Biological Resources Conservation Plan November 2016

canyons (FWS 2012). They have been reported at elevations ranging from 3,700 feet to the subalpine transition (Ganey 1998; Gutierrez et al. 1995; Johnsgard 1988). Habitat also typically has a structured canopy, a perennial water source, and a rodent dominated prey base of adequate size (Gutierrez et al. 1995). Mexican spotted owl home ranges include activity centers that represent concentrated use areas for nesting, roosting, and foraging. Protected Activity Centers designated by the FWS (2012) require a minimum of 600 acres centered on known or potential nest sites where disturbance should be avoided to conserve core use areas.

Status of the Species in the Project Area and Survey Results The Project is located near the northern edge of the range of the Mexican spotted owl in Colorado and Utah, and the species is relatively uncommon when compared to the core of its range (FWS 2012).

Results from a habitat suitability assessment and a habitat model used for the BA indicated that 11.3 miles of potential Mexican spotted owl habitat will be crossed by the Project (BLM 2015a). All potential habitat is located between the Green River and the Argyle Canyon area in Uintah and Duchesne counties, Utah. Habitat suitability of potential habitat on BLM Vernal Field Office lands was primarily rated as poor. The model used for other lands in the analysis area was field-verified in a number of locations and was determined to have potentially overestimated the extent of suitable habitat for the species (Environmental Planning Group, LLC [EPG] 2013).

The Mexican spotted owl is not anticipated to be found near the Project area in Colorado or Wyoming. The Project will not cross designated critical habitat or FWS Protected Activity Centers for the species.

Mexican spotted owl habitat assessments and surveys will be required to inform the engineering design and POD. These surveys found [Survey results will be added when the surveys have been completed.].

Consultation Findings The BA prepared by the BLM found that the Project may affect, but is not likely to adversely affect, Mexican spotted owl. In their letter of concurrence for informal consultation for the Project (dated January 15, 2016), the FWS concurred that the Project as proposed may affect, but is not likely to adversely affect, Mexican spotted owl.

These findings assume the potential effects of noise, disturbance, and vegetation removal on the Mexican spotted owl will be avoided through the implementation of the Mexican spotted owl conservation measures. Avoidance of Mexican spotted owl nest sites by appropriate buffer distances will prevent impacts resulting from noise and human presence if the species is confirmed to be present in the Project area.

Monitoring Requirements Construction and resource monitoring to verify the results of surveys conducted to inform the engineering design and POD are accurate at the time of construction will be required for Mexican spotted owl. [Monitoring requirements will be added or updated when the surveys have been completed. Refer to Attachment B – Biological Resources Monitoring Plan Framework.]

B1.3.4.11 Yellow-billed Cuckoo Background and Habitat Requirements The yellow-billed cuckoo is listed as threatened under the ESA. Critical habitat was proposed in nine states, including Wyoming, Colorado, and Utah, but no proposed critical habitat is crossed by the Project.

Energy Gateway South Transmission Project B1-30 Plan of Development Appendix B1 – Biological Resources Conservation Plan November 2016

The western yellow-billed cuckoo prefers large stands of dense riparian woodlands for nesting that are primarily composed of cottonwood (Populus fremontii), willow (Salix spp.), and mesquite (Prosopis spp.) along riparian corridors in otherwise arid areas (Hughes 1999). Several studies have reported western yellow-billed cuckoos preferring to nest in tracts greater than 25 acres in size. Dense undergrowth may be an important factor in selection of nest sites (Ehrlich et al. 1988), as multi-storied canopy and dense shrubby vegetation provide invertebrate prey and cover for foraging juveniles (Corman and Wise-Gervais 2005). Water is required near the nesting site (Corman and Wise-Gervais 2005; Floyd et al. 2007), which, along with dense vegetation, maintains the humidity required in the nesting area for hatching eggs and rearing chicks (Corman and Wise-Gervais 2005; Laymon 1998).

Status of the Species in the Project Area and Survey Results The western yellow-billed cuckoo may be found in riparian habitats associated with major river systems in the Project area. A habitat model used for the EIS and BA indicated that modeled habitat for the yellow-billed cuckoo is crossed in seven locations.

Yellow-billed cuckoo habitat assessments and surveys will be required to inform the engineering design and POD. [Survey results will be added when the surveys have been completed.]

Consultation Findings The BA prepared by the BLM found that the Project may affect, and is not likely to adversely affect, the yellow-billed cuckoo. In their letter of concurrence for informal consultation for the Project (dated January 15, 2016), the FWS concurred that the Project may affect, but is not likely to adversely affect, the western distinct population segment of the yellow-billed cuckoo.

These findings assumed the implementation of the yellow-billed cuckoo conservation measures will eliminate the potential effects of noise on yellow-billed cuckoo breeding and nesting activities and will minimize other threats to this species posed by the Project. However, some loss of suitable habitat may be unavoidable due to vegetation clearing at major river crossings.

Monitoring Requirements Construction monitoring and resource monitoring to verify that the results of the surveys conducted to inform the engineering design and POD are accurate at the time of construction will be required for yellow-billed cuckoo. [Monitoring requirements will be added or updated when the surveys have been completed. Refer to Attachment B – Biological Resources Monitoring Plan Framework.]

B1.3.4.12 Black-footed Ferret Background and Habitat Requirements The black-footed ferret is listed as endangered under the ESA. However, all ferrets present in the Project area are part of reintroduced, experimental nonessential populations.

The black-footed ferret co-evolved with prairie dogs (Cynomys spp.) in North America and is considered to be a prairie dog obligate. The ferret is dependent entirely on prairie dog colonies, utilizing prairie dog burrows for shelter and den sites and preying almost exclusively on prairie dogs (Biggins 2006). The significant reduction in the distribution and abundance of prairie dogs throughout North America during the twentieth century resulted in the near extirpation of the black-footed ferret (Esch et al. 2005). Despite several successful reintroductions, the black-footed ferret remains one of the most endangered mammals in North America.

Energy Gateway South Transmission Project B1-31 Plan of Development Appendix B1 – Biological Resources Conservation Plan November 2016

Status of the Species in the Project Area and Survey Results All known black-footed ferret populations are descended from reintroduced, captive-bred . The Project crosses three black-footed ferret release sites: the Shirley Basin/Medicine Bow Management Area in Wyoming, the Wolf Creek Management Area in Colorado, and the Coyote Basin Management Area in Utah.

Surveys for black-footed ferret will not be conducted for the Project. All white-tailed prairie dog colonies within active black-footed ferret management areas are considered occupied by black-footed ferrets.

Consultation Findings The BA prepared by the BLM found that the Project is not likely to jeopardize the black-footed ferret. In their letter of concurrence for informal consultation for the Project (dated January 15, 2016), the FWS concurred that the Project may affect, but is not likely to jeopardize the experimental, nonessential population of black-footed ferret. These findings assume the implementation of the black-footed ferret conservation measures will minimize the greatest threats to this species posed by the Project. In addition, Project features will be micro-sited to avoid direct impacts on this species to the extent practicable. However, vehicles and machinery may create a threat to individual black-footed ferrets during construction and maintenance activities. Construction of the Project may reduce both black-footed ferret survival and prairie dog density near the Project by facilitating raptor predation, especially where the Project is not parallel to existing transmission lines.

Monitoring Requirements Construction monitoring and resource monitoring may be required for black-footed ferret. [Monitoring requirements will be added or updated when the surveys have been completed. Refer to Attachment B – Biological Resources Monitoring Plan Framework.]

B1.3.4.13 Canada Lynx and Gray Wolf The Project does not cross any areas known or likely to be occupied by resident Canada lynx or gray wolf but does cross intermountain valleys that may be used by dispersing Canada lynx or gray wolf. The BA prepared by the BLM found that the Project may affect, but is not likely to adversely affect, the Canada lynx and the gray wolf. In their letter of concurrence for informal consultation for the Project (dated January 15, 2016), the FWS concurred that the Project as proposed may affect, but is not likely to adversely affect the Canada lynx and endangered population of gray wolf in Colorado and Utah.

No conservation measures are proposed specifically for Canada lynx or gray wolf, and no surveys for these species are required. In the event that Canada lynx or gray wolf are observed in the Project area, work must stop and the BLM must be contacted immediately.

B1.3.5 Plant and Wildlife Species Managed by the Bureau of Land Management or U.S. Forest Service as Sensitive Species or Management Indicator Species Impacts on species managed by the BLM or USFS as sensitive species (including USFS Management Indicator Species) were identified during the EIS process as an issue for the Project. Impacts on USFS- sensitive plant and wildlife species were further evaluated through a BE. Field surveys for BLM and USFS-sensitive species will be required to be conducted for the Project after completion of the EIS, as described in Section B1.3.1 – Special Status Plant and Wildlife Inventory.

Energy Gateway South Transmission Project B1-32 Plan of Development Appendix B1 – Biological Resources Conservation Plan November 2016

BLM-sensitive species are designated by the appropriate State Director. At the time the Final EIS was prepared, BLM-sensitive plant species that may be affected by the Project were identified by the following lists:

 Wyoming. BLM Wyoming Sensitive Species Policy and List (Rawlins Field Office) (BLM 2010),  Colorado. Colorado BLM State Director’s Sensitive Species List by Field Station (Little Snake and White River Field Offices) (BLM 2009), and  Utah. Interim Bureau of Land Management Sensitive Plant Species List for Utah, February 2011 (BLM 2011b).

USFS-sensitive species are designated by the Regional Forester at the regional level. At the time the Final EIS was prepared, USFS-sensitive species that may be affected by the Project were identified by Region 4 – Intermountain Region (R4) Threatened, Endangered, Proposed, and Sensitive Species Known and Suspected Distribution by Forest (USFS 2013).

The concerns for both BLM and USFS-sensitive plant and wildlife species are the same as those described for ESA-listed plant and wildlife species. The BLM and USFS are required to avoid, minimize, and mitigate impacts on sensitive species that may occur as a result of actions they authorize. The agencies typically comply with these requirements by conducting field surveys to determine the extent of sensitive plant and wildlife species and their habitat around actions they authorize and designing these actions to avoid occupied habitats. In areas where complete avoidance of occupied habitat is not feasible, the agencies are required to minimize the impacts to the extent possible and compensate or offset impacts that will not be in compliance with agency management guidelines.

At this time, detailed engineering design of the Project is not complete and field surveys for BLM- and USFS-sensitive plants and wildlife have not been conducted. Therefore, it is not possible to determine which BLM and USFS-sensitive plant and wildlife species are present in the Project area and what specific actions or mitigation measures will be required to avoid, minimize, and mitigate for the effects of the Project on BLM and USFS-sensitive plant and wildlife species. Table B1-4 – Bureau of Land Management and U.S. Forest Service Sensitive Plant Species and Table B1-5 – Bureau of Land Management and U.S. Forest Service Sensitive and U.S. Forest SErvice Management Indicator Wildlife Species Likely to Occur in the Project Area list BLM and USFS-sensitive species that may be present along the Project based on the analysis conducted for the agency-preferred route in the Final EIS. This list will be revised based on the results of surveys conducted to inform the preparation of the POD.

B1.3.5.1 Greater Sage-grouse Background and Habitat Requirements The greater sage-grouse is a BLM-, USFS-, and state-sensitive species. The species was also a candidate for listing as threatened or endangered under the ESA, but on September 21, 2015 the FWS determined that protection for greater sage-grouse under the ESA is no longer warranted and the FWS is withdrawing the species from the candidate species list. Sage-grouse population persistence has been linked to the availability of sagebrush habitat; the dependence of the species on sagebrush through all seasonal periods has been well documented (Connelly et al. 2004). Sage-grouse are considered a landscape-scale species as populations generally inhabit and rely on large, interconnected expanses of sagebrush (Connelly et al. 2004). Connelly et al. (2011) report that sage-grouse populations typically occupy habitats with a diversity of species and subspecies of sagebrush interspersed with a variety of other habitats; these habitats usually are intermixed in a sagebrush-dominated landscape and are used often by sage-grouse during certain times of the year or during certain years.

Energy Gateway South Transmission Project B1-33 Plan of Development Appendix B1 – Biological Resources Conservation Plan November 2016

TABLE B1-4 BUREAU OF LAND MANAGEMENT AND U.S. FOREST SERVICE SENSITIVE PLANT SPECIES U.S. Forest Bureau of Land Service Management Sensitive Sensitive Species Species

La Sal

-

Utah

Forest

Colorado

Wyoming

Manti

Uinta National Common Name Scientific Name National Forest Known Locations in the Project Area Argyle Canyon The species is known to occur within 5 miles of the Project in Phacelia argylensis  phacelia Uintah County, Utah, along Links U411 and U417. The species is not known to occur in the Project area. However, small patches of potentially suitable habitat for the species were Beaver Rim phlox Phlox pungens  modeled in the Project area in Carbon County, Wyoming (Fertig and Thurston 2003). The species is known to occur within 5 miles of the Project in Caespitose cat's-eye Cryptantha caespitosa  Duchesne County, Utah, along Links U400 and U401. Hedysarum occidentale The species is known to occur within 5 miles of the Project in Canyon sweet-vetch SS var. canone Carbon County, Utah, along Links U445, U504, U508, and U514. The species is known to occur in the Project area in Emery and Carrington daisy Erigeron carringtoniae SS Sanpete Counties, Utah; one location is approximately 30 miles

from Link U625. Suitable habitat was modeled near or in the Project area (Fertig and Thurston 2003). However, there are no known occurrences of the species in the Project area. Based on discussions with agency Cedar Rim thistle Cirsium aridum  specialists, potentially suitable habitat for the species may or may not be present in the Project area (Blomquist 2012; Glennon 2012). The species is known to occur within 5 miles of the Project in Moffat and Rio Blanco counties, Colorado, along Links C175, Debris milkvetch Astragalus detritalis  C186, C188, and U242; in Uintah and Duchesne counties, Utah,

along Links C188, U242, U280, U400, U401, U404, U408, U411, U413, and U418.

Energy Gateway South Transmission Project B1-34 Plan of Development Appendix B1 – Biological Resources Conservation Plan November 2016

TABLE B1-4 BUREAU OF LAND MANAGEMENT AND U.S. FOREST SERVICE SENSITIVE PLANT SPECIES U.S. Forest Bureau of Land Service Management Sensitive Sensitive Species Species

La Sal

-

Utah

Forest

Colorado

Wyoming

Manti

Uinta National Common Name Scientific Name National Forest Known Locations in the Project Area The species is known to occur within 5 miles of the Project in Rio Astragalus Duchesne milkvetch  Blanco County, Colorado, along Links C188 and U242; in Uintah duchesnensis County, Utah, along Links U242, U280, U285, U300, and U400. The species is known to occur within 5 miles of the Project in Sweetwater and Carbon counties, Wyoming, along Links W113, Gibben’s W302, and W411. Suitable habitat for the species is located in Penstemon gibbensii   beardtongue Wyoming in Carbon County within 10 miles of Links W30 and W32; and in Sweetwater County within 5 miles of Links W411, W113, and W116. The species is known to occur within 5 miles of the Project in Goodrich's Mentzelia goodrichii  Duchesne County, Utah, along Links U401, U404, U408, U411, blazingstar U413, U417, and U418. The species is known to occur within 5 miles of the Project in Rio Graham's Blanco County, Colorado, along Links C186 and C188 and Penstemon grahamii   beardtongue Duchesne and Uintah counties, Utah, along Links U400, U242, and U401. The species is known to occur within 5 miles of the Project in Green River Thelesperma   Duchesne County, Utah, along Links U401, U404, U408, U413, greenthread caespitosum and U418. The species is known to occur within 5 miles of the Project in Horseshoe Uintah County, Utah, along Link U300. BLM-mapped potential Astragalus equisolensis   milkvetch habitat for the species occurs within 5 miles of the transmission line in Uintah County along Link U241. The species is known to occur within 5 miles of the Project in Huber’s pepperwort Lepidium huberi  Uintah County, Utah, along Link U241 and in Rio Blanco County, Colorado, along Link C188.

Energy Gateway South Transmission Project B1-35 Plan of Development Appendix B1 – Biological Resources Conservation Plan November 2016

TABLE B1-4 BUREAU OF LAND MANAGEMENT AND U.S. FOREST SERVICE SENSITIVE PLANT SPECIES U.S. Forest Bureau of Land Service Management Sensitive Sensitive Species Species

La Sal

-

Utah

Forest

Colorado

Wyoming

Manti

Uinta National Common Name Scientific Name National Forest Known Locations in the Project Area The species is not known to occur in the Project area. Suitable Meadow pussytoes Antennaria arcuata  habitat for the species was modeled in the Project area in Wyoming (Fertig and Thurston 2003). The species is known to occur within 5 miles of the Project in Moffat County, Colorado, along Links C186 and C188. The Narrow-stem gilia Gilia stenothyrsa  species is known to occur within 20 miles of Links C175 and U242 in Rio Blanco County, Colorado. The species is known to occur within 5 miles of the Project in Rio Blanco and Moffat counties, Colorado, along Links C171, C173, Ownbey's thistle Cirsium ownbeyi  C175, C175, C186, C91, and C92. Suitable habitat for the species

is modeled in the Project area in Wyoming (Fertig and Thurston 2003). The species is known to occur within 5 miles of the Project in Carbon County, Wyoming, along Link W30. Additionally, Persistent-sepal Rorippa calycina  suitable habitat for the species was modeled in Sweetwater and yellowcress Carbon counties, Wyoming, along Links W116, W32, W101 and W108 (Fertig and Thurston 2003). The species is known to occur within 5 miles of the Project in Rollins’ cat’s-eye Cryptantha rollinsii  Colorado along Links C188, U242, and U241. Yucca harrimaniae var. The species is known to occur within 5 miles of the Project in Spanish bayonet  sterilis Uintah County, Utah, along Links U300 and U400. The species is known to occur along the Project in Duchesne Untermann's daisy Erigeron untermannii  County, Utah, within 10 miles of Links U411, U401, U413, U514,

and U508.

Energy Gateway South Transmission Project B1-36 Plan of Development Appendix B1 – Biological Resources Conservation Plan November 2016

TABLE B1-4 BUREAU OF LAND MANAGEMENT AND U.S. FOREST SERVICE SENSITIVE PLANT SPECIES U.S. Forest Bureau of Land Service Management Sensitive Sensitive Species Species

La Sal

-

Utah

Forest

Colorado

Wyoming

Manti

Uinta National Common Name Scientific Name National Forest Known Locations in the Project Area The species is known to occur along the Project in Uintah County, White River Penstemon scariosus Utah, and western Rio Blanco County, Colorado. Potentially   beardtongue var. albifluvis suitable habitat for the species occurs along Links U280, U400, U404, U401, U413, U411, U417, U445, U504, U508, and U516. SOURCE: Nomenclature follows NatureServe Explorer NatureServe 2012. NOTE: U.S. Forest Service: SS = Sensitive species with known habitat on the national forest

Energy Gateway South Transmission Project B1-37 Plan of Development Appendix B1 – Biological Resources Conservation Plan November 2016

TABLE B1-5 BUREAU OF LAND MANAGEMENT AND U.S. FOREST SERVICE SENSITIVE AND U.S. FOREST SERVICE MANAGEMENT INDICATOR WILDLIFE SPECIES LIKELY TO OCCUR IN THE PROJECT AREA Common Name Scientific Name Status Likelihood of Occurrence Bureau of Land Management May occur. Inhabit wet (BLM)-, U.S. Forest Service habitats interspersed in Boreal Toad Bufo boreas boreas (USFS)- and state-sensitive subalpine forests above species 8,600 feet. Likely to occur. The Project BLM and state-sensitive crosses potentially suitable Mountain plover Charadrius montanus species (Wyoming) habitat in all three states (BLM 2015b). BLM and state-sensitive Likely to occur. The Project Brachylagus species, U.S. Fish and crosses potentially suitable Pygmy rabbit idahoensis Wildlife Service (FWS) habitat in Wyoming and species of concern Colorado (BLM 2015b). BLM and state-sensitive Known to occur. The Project White-tailed prairie Cynomys leucurus species, FWS species of crosses potential colonies in dog concern all three states (BLM 2015b). Likely to occur. The Project BLM and state-sensitive area is within known range Wyoming pocket Thomomys clusius species, FWS species of and distribution for the gopher concern species (Wyoming Game and Fish Department 2010). Likely to occur. The Project BLM and USFS-sensitive crosses potentially suitable Haliaeetus Bald eagle species (Manti-La Sal and nesting, wintering, and leucocephalus Uinta National Forest) roosting areas and foraging habitat. BLM and USFS-sensitive species (Manti-La Sal and May occur. The Project Uinta National Forest) crosses potentially suitable Northern goshawk Accipter gentilis USFS management indicator nesting and foraging habitat species (Manti-La Sal and occurs in the Project area. Uinta National Forest) May occur. The Project BLM and USFS-sensitive crosses potentially suitable Spotted bat Euderma maculatum species (Manti-La Sal and roosting and foraging habitat Uinta National Forest) occurs in the Project area. May occur. The Project BLM and USFS-sensitive Townsend's big- Corynorhinus crosses potentially suitable species (Manti-La Sal and eared bat townsendii roosting and foraging habitat Uinta National Forest) occurs in the Project area. Management Indicator Elk Cervus elaphus Species (MIS) (Manti-La Sal Known to occur. National Forest) MIS (Manti-La Sal National Golden eagle Aquila chrysaetos Likely to occur. Forest) MIS (Manti-La Sal National Odocoileus hemionus Known to occur. Forest) Burrowing owl Athene cunicularia BLM-sensitive species Known to occur. Ferruginous hawk Buteo regalis BLM-sensitive species Known to occur.

Energy Gateway South Transmission Project B1-38 Plan of Development Appendix B1 – Biological Resources Conservation Plan November 2016

Leks are situated in areas with minimal shrub cover adjacent to relatively dense sagebrush stands where strutting male exposure is maximized but escape, thermal, and feeding cover is readily available (Gill 1965; Patterson 1952). An important characteristic for leks may be their proximity and configuration with nesting habitat (per theories of lek evolution and mating behavior) (Gibson 1996).

Status of the Species in the Project Area and Survey Results The Project crosses designated sage-grouse core areas, priority habitat management areas, general habitat management areas, habitats within 4 miles of known active leks both inside and outside core areas, and designated Priority Areas for Conservation in all three states. In Wyoming, the entire length of the Project traverses occupied sage-grouse habitat; but where crossing core areas and priority habitat management areas, the Project is located in a transmission line corridor designed by Wyoming Executive Order 2015- 4. In Colorado, almost the entire length of the Project traverses occupied sage-grouse habitat. In Utah, the Project crosses three distinct population areas: Anthro Mountain, Deadman’s Bench, and Emma Park.

Surveys for sage-grouse leks will be required as a condition of the BLM right-of-way grant and USFS special-use authorization. [Survey results will be added when the surveys have been completed.]

Results of Environmental Impact Statement Analysis and Degree of Allowable Impacts Implementation of the greater sage-grouse conservation measures will minimize the potential effects of direct mortality, increased disturbance, and loss or modification of habitat on sage-grouse. Despite efforts to avoid or minimize potential effects on sage-grouse, including modifying routes and segments that will have comparatively higher impacts on sage-grouse and implementing additional onsite mitigation, the impact assessment and mitigation planning process used in the EIS found that residual impacts on sage- grouse and sage-grouse habitat will be high.

The Project will result in loss of sage-grouse habitats, and the presence of the Project in sage-grouse habitat may increase susceptibility of sage-grouse to predation. Habitat fragmentation and displacement also are likely to occur due to the tendency of sage-grouse to avoid areas that contain tall structures. Greater sage-grouse are a priority management species for the BLM and other federal agencies, and these residual impacts will not be consistent with the objectives for sage-grouse and sage-grouse habitat management identified in applicable agency plans and policies. Therefore, residual impacts on sage- grouse will require appropriate offsite mitigation that could be implemented to facilitate development of the Project consistent with applicable agency plans and policies pertaining to sage-grouse. Residual impacts remaining after application of the conservation measures contained in this Plan will be addressed through compensatory mitigation that will be provided by the Company and outlined in the Company’s Sage-grouse Compensatory Mitigation Plan. The BLM will require and ensure mitigation that provides a net conservation gain to the species, including accounting for any uncertainty associated with the effectiveness of such mitigation.

Monitoring Requirements Construction monitoring and resource monitoring to verify that the results of sage-grouse surveys are accurate at the time of construction will be required for greater sage-grouse. [Monitoring requirements will be added or updated when the surveys have been completed. Refer to Attachment B – Biological Resources Monitoring Plan Framework.]

Energy Gateway South Transmission Project B1-39 Plan of Development Appendix B1 – Biological Resources Conservation Plan November 2016

B1.3.5.2 Graham’s Beardtongue Background and Habitat Requirements Graham’s beardtongue is a BLM-sensitive species. The species was previously proposed for listing under the ESA. The proposal to list the species was withdrawn as a result of signing of a conservation agreement between the BLM, the FWS, and a number of other parties.

Graham’s beardtongue is limited to the Uinta Basin in known occurrences in Carbon, Duchesne, and Uintah counties in Utah and Rio Blanco County, Colorado (Utah Native Plant Society 2012). The species inhabits exposed raw shale knolls and slopes. The majority of populations are associated with exposed oil shale Mahogany ledge (71 FR 3160).

Status of the Species in the Project Area and Survey Results There are a total of 62 known occurrences of Graham’s beardtongue within 5 miles of Links C22, C188, C196, U240, U242, and U400. Only two occurrences fall within the 1-mile buffer. One occurrence is approximately 9 miles west of Rangely on the north side of the White River. The other occurrence is close to the centerline of Links C188 and U242 on Raven Ridge near the Utah-Colorado state line. The FWS previously proposed critical habitat for Graham’s beardtongue approximately 1 mile from Link U242 and within 1 mile of Link U400 in Utah. West of the Green River, the Project centerline is approximately 860 feet to the northeast of Penstemon conservation areas designated in the Conservation Agreement and Strategy for Graham’s Beardtongue and White River Beardtongue (Conservation Agreement) signed by the BLM. [Survey results will be added when the surveys have been completed.]

Results of Environmental Impact Statement Analysis and Degree of Allowable Impacts The EIS acknowledged that some impacts on Graham’s beardtongue habitat may occur. According to the Conservation Agreement signed by the BLM, allowable impacts are as follows:

 Federal lands  Within conservation areas, surface disturbance is limited to 5 percent additional disturbance for Graham’s beardtongue per conservation unit. For federal lands, surface-disturbing activities are defined as those that modify vegetation, soils, or surface geology beyond natural site conditions.  Inside and outside of conservation areas, individuals should be avoided by 300 feet. Surface- disturbing activities may occur within 300 feet of plants if it benefits or reduces impacts to the species or its habitat.

 Nonfederal lands  In conservation areas, surface disturbance is limited to 5 percent additional disturbance for Graham’s beardtongue per landowner. For nonfederal lands, surface-disturbing activities are defined as construction of new roads, improved roads, or permanent structures or permitted activity.  In conservation areas, individuals should be avoided by 300 feet. Surface-disturbing activities may occur within 300 feet of plants if it benefits or reduces impacts to the species or its habitat.  Interim conservation areas should be managed as conservation areas prior to any plan or exploration approval.

Energy Gateway South Transmission Project B1-40 Plan of Development Appendix B1 – Biological Resources Conservation Plan November 2016

 In nonconservation areas, conservation actions are encouraged but not required. Voluntary conservation efforts are listed in the Conservation Agreement. If Graham’s beardtongue plants are located during surveys, BLM Manual 6840 and the Conservation Agreement require that the BLM take actions to avoid, minimize, and mitigate for impacts on BLM- sensitive species. The design features of the Project for environmental protection and selective mitigation measures implemented to avoid and reduce impacts on Graham’s beardtongue are consistent with the avoidance of impacts required under the mitigation hierarchy.

Monitoring Requirements If Graham’s beardtongue plants are located during surveys, biological monitors will be required during construction to assist construction crews with identifying and avoiding plants during construction, monitoring the effectiveness of conservation measures, and ensuring the impacts of the Project are consistent with the impacts analyzed in the EIS. [Monitoring requirements will be added or updated when the surveys have been completed. Refer to Attachment B – Biological Resources Monitoring Plan Framework.]

B1.3.5.3 Mountain Plover Background and Habitat Requirements The mountain plover is a BLM-sensitive and state-sensitive (Wyoming) species. The mountain plover was formerly a candidate to be listed as threatened under the ESA. On September 9, 2003, the FWS withdrew the listing because newly acquired information indicated the threats to the species originally included in the proposal were not as significant as earlier believed (68 FR 53803).

The mountain plover is associated with shortgrass prairie landscapes where the topography is fairly flat and the vegetation is sparse (Beidleman 2000), composed primarily of blue grama (Bouteloua gracilis) and buffalo grass (Buchloe dactyloides) (Parrish et al. 2002). Mountain plovers often breed near areas of excessive disturbance (Knopf and Miller 1994) and prairie dog colonies (Knowles and Stoner 1982). Mountain plovers migrate from their wintering grounds in the Central Valley of California and Mexico to breeding grounds in mid-March. Mountain plovers leave breeding grounds in August. Habitats used during wintering periods include plowed fields, heavily grazed annual grasslands, and burned fields (Knopf and Rupert 1995).

Status of the Species in the Project Area and Survey Results In Wyoming, mountain plovers have been documented in every county and are known to breed in the Project area. In Colorado, populations are concentrated in and around the Pawnee and Comanche National Grasslands and in South Park, all outside of the Project area. The breeding population in Utah (Duchesne and Uintah counties) is in the Project area but has not been detected since 2002 and may have been extirpated (Bosworth 2003). [Survey results will be added when the surveys have been completed.]

Results of Environmental Impact Statement Analysis and Degree of Allowable Impacts The EIS acknowledged that some impacts on mountain plover habitat may occur. The design features of the Project for environmental protection and selective mitigation measures implemented to avoid and reduce impacts on mountain plovers are consistent with the minimization of impacts required under the mitigation hierarchy.

Energy Gateway South Transmission Project B1-41 Plan of Development Appendix B1 – Biological Resources Conservation Plan November 2016

Monitoring Requirements If mountain plovers are located during surveys, biological monitors will be required during construction to assist construction crews with identifying and avoiding mountain plovers during construction, monitoring the effectiveness of conservation measures, and ensuring the impacts of the Project are consistent with the impacts analyzed in the EIS. Refer to Section 1.4.3.3 for conservation measures applicable in mountain plover nesting and other occupied habitat. [Monitoring requirements will be added or updated when the surveys have been completed. Refer to Attachment B – Biological Resources Monitoring Plan Framework.]

B1.3.5.4 Pygmy Rabbit Background and Habitat Requirements The pygmy rabbit is a BLM- and state-sensitive species and an FWS species of concern. The FWS has reviewed a petition to list the species rangewide but found that listing of the pygmy rabbit was not warranted (75 FR 60516-60561).

The species is restricted to areas having dense, tall stands of sagebrush and soil characteristics conducive to burrowing.

Status of the Species in the Project Area and Survey Results The transmission line route is within the known range of the species and contains suitable habitat. In Wyoming, the species is likely to occur in the Project area in Carbon and Sweetwater counties. Pygmy rabbits have recently been identified in Moffat County in Colorado and may exist in sagebrush habitats crossed by the Project in other counties in the state as well (Estes-Zumpf and Rachlow 2009). Pygmy rabbits are not known to inhabit the Project area in Utah (Bosworth 2003). [Survey results will be added when the surveys have been completed.]

Results of Environmental Impact Statement Analysis and Degree of Allowable Impacts The EIS acknowledged that some impacts on pygmy rabbit habitat may occur. The design features of the Project for environmental protection and selective mitigation measures implemented to avoid and reduce impacts on pygmy rabbits are consistent with the minimization of impacts required under the mitigation hierarchy.

Monitoring Requirements If pygmy rabbits are located during surveys, biological monitors will be required during construction to assist construction crews with identifying and avoiding pygmy rabbits during construction, monitoring the effectiveness of conservation measures, and ensuring the impacts of the Project are consistent with the impacts analyzed in the EIS. Refer to Section 1.4.3.4 for conservation measures applicable in pygmy rabbit habitat. [Monitoring requirements will be added or updated when the surveys have been completed. Refer to Attachment B – Biological Resources Monitoring Plan Framework.]

B1.3.5.5 White River Beardtongue Background and Habitat Requirements

White River beardtongue is a BLM-sensitive species. The species was previously proposed for listing under the ESA. The proposal to list the species was withdrawn as a result of signing of a conservation agreement between the BLM, the FWS, and a number of other parties.

Energy Gateway South Transmission Project B1-42 Plan of Development Appendix B1 – Biological Resources Conservation Plan November 2016

Known populations of White River beardtongue are limited to a 20-mile arc that extends from Raven Ridge west of Rangely in Rio Blanco County, Colorado, to the vicinity of Willow Creek in Uintah County, Utah (78 FR 47595). White River beardtongue is endemic to the oil shale barrens found in semi-barren openings in Pinyon-juniper-desert shrub or desert shrub communities on substrates composed of fine textured soils and shale fragments weathered from the Green River Formation of the Uinta Basin of northeastern Utah and adjacent Colorado. This geologic formation covers more than 100 square miles of area in Utah and Colorado; however, the species currently occupies less than 1 percent of the extent of oil shale barrens available in Colorado and Utah. It is frequently found on white or red soil at an elevation of 5,000 to 6,680 feet. Associated vegetation includes shadscale, rabbitbrush, Indian ricegrass, saline wildrye, sagebrush, and Barneby’s thistle (Cirsium barnebyi) (Utah Native Plant Society 2012).

Status of the Species in the Project Area and Survey Results White River beardtongue is in Uintah County, Utah, and western Rio Blanco County, Colorado, near the White River to the vicinity of Evacuation Creek and in the vicinity of Willow Creek (FWS 2011c). Populations are located along the White River, near the Utah-Colorado border. West of the Green River, the Project centerline is approximately 860 feet to the northeast of Penstemon conservation areas designated in the Conservation Agreement signed by the BLM. [Survey results will be added when the surveys have been completed.]

Results of Environmental Impact Statement Analysis and Degree of Allowable Impacts The EIS acknowledged that some impacts on White River beardtongue habitat may occur. According to the Conservation Agreement signed by the BLM, allowable impacts are as follows:

 Federal lands  Within Conservation Areas, surface disturbance is limited to 2.5 percent additional disturbance for White River beardtongue per conservation unit. For federal lands, surface- disturbing activities are defined as those that modify vegetation, soils, or surface geology beyond natural site conditions.  Inside and outside of Conservation Areas, individuals should be avoided by 300 feet. Surface- disturbing activities may occur within 300 feet of plants if it benefits or reduces impacts to the species or its habitat.

 Nonfederal lands  Within Conservation Areas, surface disturbance is limited to 2.5 percent additional disturbance for White River beardtongue per land owner. For nonfederal lands, surface- disturbing activities are defined as construction of new roads, improved roads, or permanent structures, or permitted activity.  Within Conservation Areas, individuals should be avoided by 300 feet. Surface-disturbing activities may occur within 300 feet of plants if it benefits or reduces impacts to the species or its habitat.  Interim Conservation Areas should be managed as Conservation Areas prior to any plan or exploration approval.  In Nonconservation Areas, conservation actions are encouraged, but not required. Voluntary conservation efforts are listed in the Conservation Agreement. If White River beardtongue plants are located during surveys, BLM Manual 6840 requires that the BLM take actions to avoid, minimize, and mitigate for impacts on BLM-sensitive species. The design features

Energy Gateway South Transmission Project B1-43 Plan of Development Appendix B1 – Biological Resources Conservation Plan November 2016

of the Project for environmental protection and selective mitigation measures implemented to avoid and reduce impacts on White River beardtongue are consistent with the avoidance of impacts required under the mitigation hierarchy.

Monitoring Requirements If Graham’s beardtongue plants are located during surveys, biological monitors will be required during construction to assist construction crews with identifying and avoiding plants during construction, monitoring the effectiveness of conservation measures, and ensuring the impacts of the Project are consistent with the impacts analyzed in the EIS. [Monitoring requirements will be added or updated when the surveys have been completed. Refer to Attachment B – Biological Resources Monitoring Plan Framework.]

B1.3.5.6 White-tailed Prairie Dog Background and Habitat Requirements The white-tailed prairie dog is a BLM- and state-sensitive species and an FWS species of concern.

The white-tailed prairie dog occurs from south-central Montana south to northeastern Utah and western Colorado in arid grasslands and shrub/grassland habitats with less than 12 to 15 percent slopes. The species is found in intermountain valleys, benches, and plateaus with diverse grass and forb cover (Wyoming Game and Fish Department [WGFD] 2005).

Status of the Species in the Project Area and Survey Results Large complexes of white-tailed prairie dogs in Wyoming and northwest Colorado account for between 50 and 75 percent of all white-tailed prairie dogs (Keinath 2004). A large portion of the Project area east of the Wasatch Mountains is in the range of the species. Numerous prairie dog colonies are known to exist near the transmission line route throughout Utah, Wyoming, and Colorado. [Survey results will be added when the surveys have been completed.]

Results of Environmental Impact Statement Analysis and Degree of Allowable Impacts The EIS acknowledged that some impacts on white-tailed prairie dog habitat may occur. The design features of the Project for environmental protection and selective mitigation measures implemented to avoid and reduce impacts on white-tailed prairie dogs are consistent with the minimization of impacts required under the mitigation hierarchy.

Monitoring Requirements If white-tailed prairie dogs are located during surveys, biological monitors will be required during construction to assist construction crews with identifying and avoiding white-tailed prairie dogs during construction, monitoring the effectiveness of conservation measures, and ensuring the impacts of the Project are consistent with the impacts analyzed in the EIS. [Monitoring requirements will be added or updated when the surveys have been completed. Refer to Attachment B – Biological Resources Monitoring Plan Framework.]

B1.3.5.7 Wyoming Pocket Gopher Background and Habitat Requirements

The Wyoming pocket gopher is a BLM- and state-sensitive species and an FWS species of concern.

Energy Gateway South Transmission Project B1-44 Plan of Development Appendix B1 – Biological Resources Conservation Plan November 2016

The Wyoming pocket gopher is primarily solitary with limited distribution. Abundance and population trends of Wyoming pocket gopher populations are unknown due to limited data. Little is known about the Wyoming pocket gopher, but habitat appears to be dry, gravelly, shallow-soil ridge tops in greasewood communities. The species has been found on edges of eroding washes. Wyoming pocket gopher typically occurs on sites with 50 to 80 percent bare ground, little to no grass or litter cover and where Wyoming big sagebrush is absent (WGFD 2010). It is highly fossorial, living in underground burrow systems and tunnels (Keinath and Beauvais 2006). It is the only mammal that occurs exclusively in Wyoming where it is known from southeastern Sweetwater County and southwestern Carbon County (WGFD 2010).

Status of the Species in the Project Area and Survey Results The transmission line route is located in the known range of the Wyoming pocket gopher and contains suitable habitat in Sweetwater and Carbon counties, Wyoming. The Wyoming pocket gopher is likely to occur near the transmission line.

Results of Environmental Impact Statement Analysis and Degree of Allowable Impacts The EIS acknowledged that some impacts on Wyoming pocket gopher habitat may occur. The design features of the Project for environmental protection and selective mitigation measures implemented to avoid and reduce impacts on Wyoming pocket gophers are consistent with the minimization of impacts required under the mitigation hierarchy.

Monitoring Requirements If Wyoming pocket gophers are located during surveys, biological monitors will be required during construction to assist construction crews with identifying and avoiding Wyoming pocket gophers during construction, monitoring the effectiveness of conservation measures, and ensuring the impacts of the Project are consistent with the impacts analyzed in the EIS. [Monitoring requirements will be added or updated when the surveys have been completed. Refer to Attachment B – Biological Resources Monitoring Plan Framework.]

B1.3.5.8 Boreal Toad Background and Habitat Requirements The boreal toad is a BLM-, USFS- and state-sensitive species. On April 12, 2012, the FWS announced a 90-day finding on a petition to list either the Eastern population or the Southern Rocky Mountain population of the boreal toad as a distinct population segment (DPS) that is endangered or threatened under the ESA and to designate critical habitat. Based on the review, the FWS found that the petition presented substantial scientific or commercial information indicating that listing Eastern population as a DPS may be warranted. The FWS initiated a 12-month review of the status of the Eastern population to determine if listing it as a DPS is warranted.

The western (boreal) toad occurs in the montane areas associated with permanent water bodies in a variety of habitats, including riparian, mountain shrub, mixed conifer, and aspen-conifer assemblages. It breeds in small pools, beaver ponds, reservoirs, and the backwaters and side channels of creeks and rivers. The Project area is outside the known range and distribution of the species in Wyoming and Colorado (Keinath and McGee 2005) but is within the known range of the species in Utah (Hogrefe et al. 2005).

Status of the Species in the Project Area and Survey Results Three known occurrences are within 1 mile of alternative routes in Utah. One is south of Helper along Link U522; another is at Kyune along Link U524; and the third is 4 miles north of Nephi along Link

Energy Gateway South Transmission Project B1-45 Plan of Development Appendix B1 – Biological Resources Conservation Plan November 2016

U650. The species is known to occur in Strawberry Reservoir, which lies within 3 miles of Link U420. The boreal toad may be present in the Project area in the Book Cliffs and San Pitch, Uinta, and Wasatch mountains and valleys.

Results of Environmental Impact Statement Analysis and Degree of Allowable Impacts The EIS acknowledged that some impacts on boreal toad habitat may occur. The design features of the Project for environmental protection and selective mitigation measures implemented to avoid and reduce impacts on boreal toads are consistent with the minimization of impacts required under the mitigation hierarchy.

Monitoring Requirements If boreal toads are located during surveys, biological monitors will be required during construction to assist construction crews with identifying and avoiding boreal toads during construction, monitoring the effectiveness of conservation measures, and ensuring the impacts of the Project are consistent with the impacts analyzed in the EIS. [Monitoring requirements will be added or updated when the surveys have been completed. Refer to Attachment B – Biological Resources Monitoring Plan Framework.]

B1.3.6 Raptors Impacts on raptors during the nesting season were identified as an issue for the Project during the EIS process. Resource inventories performed for the EIS identified many raptor species known to nest and forage in the Project area. All raptors are protected under the MBTA, and eagles are afforded additional protections under the Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act. Many raptor species also are BLM- and USFS-sensitive species.

Project-related impacts on raptors identified as significant concerns of federal agencies include (1) destruction of nests and loss of nesting habitat associated with construction of the Project and vegetation management; (2) disruptions to nesting activities and loss of raptor productivity due to Project-related increases in human activity and new public access during the breeding season; (3) increased mortality due to poaching associated with increased public access; and (4) fragmentation and loss of high quality raptor habitat.

Under Executive Order 13186 (Migratory Birds), BLM MOU WO-230-2010-04 (Memorandum of Understanding between the U.S. Department of the Interior Bureau of Land Management and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service to Promote Conservation of Migratory Birds), and Forest Service Agreement #08-MU-1113-2400-264 (Memorandum of Understanding between the U.S. Department of Agriculture Forest Service and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service to Promote the Conservation of Migratory Birds), the BLM and USFS are required to avoid, minimize, and mitigate impacts on nesting raptors that may occur as a result of actions they authorize. The agencies typically comply with these requirements by conducting raptor nest surveys to determine the location of nests and nesting habitat around actions they authorize and designing these actions to avoid disturbing nesting habitats during the nesting season. Refer to Attachment G – Seasonal and Spatial Restrictions for Biological Resources for timing limitation stipulations for breeding raptors.

The Project is likely to require construction in buffer areas around active raptor nests closed to construction activities year-round by a controlled surface-use (CSU) stipulation in the BLM Rawlins Field Office RMP that requires a year-round 825-foot spatial buffer for active raptor nests (1,200 feet for ferruginous hawk nests), as well as in areas around active raptor nests closed to construction activities year-round by a CSU stipulation in the BLM Little Snake and White River RMPs. Exceptions to the

Energy Gateway South Transmission Project B1-46 Plan of Development Appendix B1 – Biological Resources Conservation Plan November 2016

BLM-determined buffer distances can be granted depending on species, nest activity, natural topographic barriers, and construction line-of-sight distances. Locations where the Project would be within these raptor nest buffers in the BLM Rawlins, Little Snake, and White River field offices must be evaluated and appropriate mitigation must be determined on a case-by-case basis by BLM resource specialists and documented in the POD after the completion of raptor nest surveys and final engineering design of the Project.

If exceptions to the CSU stipulations identified in the BLM RMPs are granted, the BLM will require additional mitigation measures to reduce and monitor potential effects on raptors nesting in CSU areas, such as 5 years of annual nest monitoring post construction, marking of optical ground wire on the Project (Selective Mitigation Measure 14) in the CSU area, closing access roads in the CSU area after construction (Selective Mitigation Measure 15), installation of artificial nesting structures (Raptor Mitigation Measure 2), or other measures implemented in accordance with agency requirements in the event that monitoring detects a Project-related impact on nesting activities.

B1.3.6.1 Results of Environmental Impact Statement Analysis and Degree of Allowable Impacts The measures implemented to protect raptors must be sufficient to avoid take of raptors, their nests, and their young. The MBTA defines take as to pursue, hunt, shoot, wound, kill, trap, capture, or collect, or to attempt to pursue, hunt, shoot, wound, kill, trap, capture, or collect. (50 CFR 10.12). Additionally, the measures implemented to protect raptors should minimize the effects on important raptor habitats, including areas around nest sites. The design features of the Project for environmental protection and selective mitigation measures implemented to avoid and reduce impacts on raptors and their habitats are consistent with the minimization of impacts required under the mitigation hierarchy.

B1.3.6.2 Monitoring Requirements Construction monitoring and resource monitoring may be required for raptors. These monitoring requirements will be described in detail in the Biological Resources Monitoring Plan. Refer to Attachment B – Biological Resources Monitoring Plan Framework.

B1.3.7 Migratory Birds Impacts on migratory birds were identified as an issue for the Project during the EIS process. Nearly all bird species are protected under the MBTA, and many species are managed as sensitive species by the BLM and USFS. Compliance with the MBTA is required as a condition of the BLM right-of-way grant, USFS special-use authorization, Executive Order 13186, BLM MOU WO-230-2010-04, and Forest Service Agreement #08-MU-1113-2400-264. Furthermore, damage or destruction of any migratory bird, part, nest, or egg of such bird may be punishable under law. The MBTA applies to many bird species, including raptors (addressed separately in B1.3.6 – Raptors), and protects them from prohibited activities during construction, operation, and maintenance of the Project. Project-related impacts on migratory birds identified as significant concerns of federal agencies include (1) loss and modification of habitat associated with construction of the Project and vegetation management operations; (2) mortality due to in-flight collisions with the transmission line conductors, guy wires, or optical ground wires; (3) mortality and loss of production due to destruction of eggs and occupied nests in work areas; and (4) loss of production due to occupied nest disturbance during construction or maintenance activities.

Energy Gateway South Transmission Project B1-47 Plan of Development Appendix B1 – Biological Resources Conservation Plan November 2016

B1.3.7.1 Results of Environmental Impact Statement Analysis and Degree of Allowable Impacts The BLM and USFS are required to avoid, minimize, and mitigate impacts on migratory birds that may occur as a result of actions they authorize. The measures implemented to migratory birds must be sufficient to avoid take of migratory birds, their nests, and their young. The definition of take includes to pursue, shoot, shoot at, poison, wound, kill, capture, trap, collect, molest, or disturb. The agencies typically comply with these requirements by conducting migratory bird nest clearance surveys to determine the location of nests and nesting habitat around actions they authorize and designing these actions to avoid disturbing nesting habitats during the nesting season and marking Project features that present in-flight hazards for migratory birds with devices that make them more visible to birds. In areas where complete avoidance of nesting habitat is not feasible, the agencies are required to minimize the impacts to the extent possible and compensate or offset impacts that will not be in compliance with agency management guidelines.

The design features of the Project for environmental protection and selective mitigation measures implemented to avoid and reduce impacts on migratory birds and their habitats are consistent with the minimization of impacts required under the mitigation hierarchy.

Migratory bird nest clearances and guild-specific avoidance buffers around active nests will be required prior to construction activities during the nesting season as described in Attachment D – Migratory Bird Nest Management, Monitoring, and Reporting Plan Framework.

B1.3.7.2 Monitoring Requirements Construction monitoring and resource monitoring may be required for migratory birds. These monitoring requirements will be described in detail in the Biological Resources Monitoring Plan. Refer to Attachment B – Biological Resources Monitoring Plan Framework.

B1.3.8 Crucial Big Game Seasonal Habitats Resource inventories performed for the Project EIS identified the following important big game seasonal habitats that could be affected by the Project:

Elk

 Wyoming – Crucial year-long range, migration corridors  Colorado – Calving grounds, summer concentration areas, crucial/severe winter range  Utah – Calving grounds, crucial spring/fall range, crucial summer range, crucial winter range, crucial year-long range

Mule Deer

 Wyoming – Crucial winter range, crucial year-long range, migration corridors  Colorado – Crucial winter range  Utah – Crucial spring/fall range, crucial summer range, crucial winter range, crucial year-long range

Pronghorn

 Wyoming – Crucial year-long range, migration corridors  Colorado – Severe winter range  Utah – Fawning areas, crucial year-long range

Energy Gateway South Transmission Project B1-48 Plan of Development Appendix B1 – Biological Resources Conservation Plan November 2016

Moose

 Wyoming – Not applicable  Colorado – Not applicable  Utah – Calving grounds, crucial winter range, crucial year-long range

Rocky Mountain Bighorn

 Wyoming – Not applicable  Colorado – Not applicable  Utah – Crucial year-long range Project-related impacts on big game species identified as significant concerns of federal agencies include (1) loss and degradation of crucial habitat associated with construction of the Project and (2) disturbance and displacement of animals during migration and during sensitive periods due to increases in Project- related human activity and new public access.

B1.3.8.1 Results of Environmental Impact Statement Analysis and Degree of Allowable Impacts The BLM and USFS are required to avoid, minimize, and mitigate impacts on big game habitats that may occur as a result of actions they authorize. The agencies typically comply with these requirements by designing actions they authorize to avoid disturbing crucial big game habitats during critical periods. In areas where complete avoidance of crucial habitats is not feasible, the agencies are required to minimize the impacts to the extent possible and compensate or offset impacts that will not be in compliance with agency management guidelines.

The design features of the Project for environmental protection and selective mitigation measures implemented to avoid and reduce impacts on big game animals and their habitats are consistent with the avoidance and minimization of impacts required under the mitigation hierarchy.

B1.4 Biological Resource Mitigation Measures This section of the plan describes mitigation measures (derived from design features of the Project for environmental protection and selective mitigation measures developed for the Project and included in the EIS and expanded upon through consultation with agencies) that must be implemented for each biological resource. The measures for each resource have been developed through use of the BLM’s mitigation hierarchy to avoid, minimize, and mitigate for resource impacts. All mitigation actions must follow the mitigation hierarchy. The primary objective is to avoid impacts on each resource. For transmission line projects, this typically involves altering the placement of structures, work areas, and other project features to avoid affecting environmental resources. Minimizing impacts on the resource to the extent possible is the BLM’s primary objective where avoidance is not possible. Minimizing impacts on environmental resources for transmission line projects is also typically accomplished by altering the placement of structures, work areas, and other Project features. Restoration of habitat disturbed by the Project also can help achieve minimization of impacts. Where avoidance and minimization are not sufficient to achieve legal requirements or agency objectives for specific resources, additional mitigation is required (beyond what has been identified for biological resources in the EIS). The objective of this additional mitigation is to compensate for or offset the impact for which mitigation is being required. This additional mitigation may include actions such as enhancement of habitat for a species at a site not affected, purchase of habitat under threat, or other actions that benefit the resource affected. In addition to mitigation measures presented here, reclamation of vegetation communities and associated wildlife habitat and range will be implemented, as described in Appendix C1- Reclamation, Revegetation, and Monitoring Plan Framework.

Energy Gateway South Transmission Project B1-49 Plan of Development Appendix B1 – Biological Resources Conservation Plan November 2016

For each biological resource discussed below, this section provides the level of the mitigation hierarchy that the specific measures are intended to achieve and measures that must be followed to achieve adequate mitigation. For some resources, this section also identifies levels or amounts of acceptable impact and thresholds that must be met during the construction, operation, and maintenance of the Project.

B1.4.1 Loss and Fragmentation of Native Vegetation Communities The design features of the Project for environmental protection are consistent with the minimization of impacts required under the mitigation hierarchy. For some rare, high value vegetation communities, specific avoidance measures are required by agency policy. These avoidance measures are addressed separately in Appendix B3 – Water Resources Protection Plan.

Design features of the Project for environmental protection (identified in the EIS) being implemented to reduce the loss and fragmentation of native vegetation communities throughout the Project area include:

 Design Feature 1. In construction areas where recontouring is not required, vegetation will be left in place wherever possible, and original contour will be maintained to avoid excessive root damage and allow for resprouting in accordance with the reclamation plan. Vegetation not consistent with minimum clearance distances between trees and transmission lines must be removed to ensure line safety and reliability (required by North American Electric Reliability Council Transmission Vegetation Management Program [2006, 2008, 2009]).

 Design Feature 2. In construction areas where there is ground disturbance or where recontouring is required, surface reclamation will occur as required by the landowner or land-management agency. The method of reclamation normally will consist of, but not be limited to, returning disturbed areas to their natural contour, reseeding, installing cross drains for erosion control, placing water bars in the road, and filling ditches. All areas on lands administered by federal agencies disturbed as a part of the construction and/or maintenance of the Project will be seeded with a mixture appropriate for those areas. The federal land-management agency will approve a seed mixture that fits each range type. Seeding methods typically will include drill seeding, where practicable; however, the federal land- management agency may recommend broadcast seeding as an alternative method in some cases. A Reclamation, Revegetation, and Monitoring Plan Framework identifying reclamation stipulations will be developed and incorporated into the POD, which will be approved by the affected federal land-management agency prior to the issuance of a BLM right-of-way grant, USFS special-use authorization, BIA encroachment permit and grant of easement, etc.

 Design Feature 5. To prevent the spread of noxious weeds, a Noxious Weed Management Plan will be developed and incorporated into the POD, which will be approved by the affected federal land-management agencies prior to the issuance of a right-of-way grant (BLM), special-use authorization (USFS), or encroachment permit and grant of easement (BIA). This plan will be based on the principles and procedures outlined in the BLM Integrated Weed Management Manual 9015 and Forest Service Noxious Weed Management Manual 2080. On private land, the plan will be approved by a county weed management officer.

 Design Feature 9. Based on preconstruction surveys and results of Section 7 consultation, state and federally designated sensitive plants, habitat, wetlands, riparian areas, springs, wells, water courses, or rare/slow regenerating vegetation communities will be flagged and structures will be placed to allow spanning of these features, where feasible, within the limits of standard structure design.

Energy Gateway South Transmission Project B1-50 Plan of Development Appendix B1 – Biological Resources Conservation Plan November 2016

 Design Feature 14. A Fire Protection Plan will be developed and incorporated into the POD, which will be approved by the BLM, USFS, and BIA prior to the issuance of a right-of-way grant (BLM), special-use authorization (USFS), or encroachment permit and grant of easement (BIA). All internal and external combustion engines on federally managed lands will be operated per 36 CFR 261.52, which requires all such engines to be equipped with a qualified spark arrester that is maintained and not modified.

 Design Feature 17. In disturbed temporary work areas, the topsoil will be salvaged/segregated and distributed and contoured evenly over the surface of the disturbed area after construction completion. The soil surface will be seeded with an agency-approved seed mix and left rough to help reduce the potential for weeds and erosion.

 Design Feature 26. All vehicle movement outside the right-of-way will be restricted to predesignated access, contractor-acquired access, public roads, or overland travel approved in advance by the applicable land-management agency, unless authorized by the Compliance Inspection Contractor (CIC) (during construction).

 Design Feature 27. The spatial limits of construction activities, including vehicle movement, will be predetermined with activity restricted to and confined within those limits. No paint or permanent discoloring agents indicating survey or construction limits will be applied to rocks, vegetation, structures, fences, etc.

 Design Feature 28. Prior to construction, the CIC will instruct all personnel on the protection of cultural, paleontological, ecological, and other natural resources, such as (a) federal and state laws regarding antiquities, paleontological resources, and plants and wildlife, including collection and removal; (b) the importance of these resources; (c) the purpose and necessity of protecting them; and (d) reporting and procedures for stop work.

 Design Feature 30. Hazardous material will not be discharged onto the ground or into streams or drainage areas. Enclosed containment will be provided for all waste. All construction waste will be removed to a disposal facility authorized to accept such materials within 1 week of Project completion. A Spill Pollution Prevention, Containment, and Countermeasures Plan Framework will be developed as part of the POD. Refueling and storing potentially hazardous materials will not occur within a 100-foot radius of a water body, a 200-foot radius of all identified private water wells, and a 400-foot radius of all identified municipal or community water wells. Spill prevention and containment measures will be incorporated as needed.

 Design Feature 33. Consistent with BLM Riparian Management Policy, surface-disturbing activities within 328 feet (100 meters) of a riparian areas (defined as areas of land directly influenced by permanent surface or subsurface water having visible vegetation or physical characteristics reflective of permanent water influence, including wetlands, stream banks, and shores of ponds or lakes) in Utah and Colorado will be required to meet exception criteria defined by the BLM, such as acceptable measures to protect riparian resources and habitats by avoiding or minimizing stormwater runoff, sedimentation, and disturbance of riparian vegetation, habitats, and wildlife species. In Wyoming, surface-disturbing activities within 500 feet of all perennial waters and/or wetland and riparian areas and 100 feet (30 meters) of all ephemeral channels also will be required to meet exception criteria in association with the BLM Rawlins Field Office RMP (BLM 2008a). Mitigation measures will be developed on a site-specific basis, in consultation with the affected federal land-management agency, and incorporated into the final POD.

Energy Gateway South Transmission Project B1-51 Plan of Development Appendix B1 – Biological Resources Conservation Plan November 2016

If any disturbance is anticipated within 20 feet of the edge of a riparian area or other wetland habitat, a silt fence or certified weed-free wattle will be installed along the travel route on the wetland side unless the wetland is up-gradient.

B1.4.2 ESA-listed Plant and Wildlife Species This section contains conservation/mitigation measures for each ESA-listed plant and wildlife species developed through the EIS and expanded upon during the Section 7 consultation process. Compliance with the measures in this section is required to comply with the ESA and as a condition of the BLM right- of-way grant and USFS special-use authorization. Furthermore, damage or destruction of ESA-listed plants and wildlife or their habitats not specifically authorized by the FWS may be punishable under law. In the event that a conservation/mitigation measure for an ESA-listed plant cannot be followed, or in the event that the effects on the species are expected to exceed those consulted on in the BA and described in this section, reinitiating formal consultation will be required. The BLM is the lead federal agency for Section 7 consultation for the Project and should be the first agency contacted in the event that one of these situations arises during construction, operation, or maintenance. The BLM will engage with other applicable federal agencies as needed. The consultation process must be complete before any activity that may affect the species may occur.

B1.4.2.1 Clay Phacelia Conservation Measures The conservation measures for clay phacelia, developed through the Section 7 consultation process and included in the BA are provided below. The conservation measures are consistent with the conservation measures developed through the EIS process and the avoidance of impacts required under the mitigation hierarchy.

Design, Engineering, and Preparation of the Plan of Development

 Clay Phacelia Conservation Measure 1. A field habitat assessment would be conducted prior to final engineering and design, the geotechnical investigation, or any other construction activities, to ground-truth the August 2013 USFS-suitable habitat model and determine presence of suitable habitat within a 650-buffer surrounding modeled habitat where this area is traversed by the proposed right-of-way or has potential to be affected by other Project-related disturbance (i.e., geotechnical investigations, access roads, fly yards). Habitat assessments will be coordinated with the Utah Field Office of FWS and may occur any time as long as there is no snow cover. Suitable habitat parameters developed by the FWS (Attachment E) will be used to assess habitat suitability.

Construction, Operation, and Maintenance

 Clay Phacelia Conservation Measure 2. Following habitat assessments, all suitable habitat (including field-verified suitable habitat identified in both modeled habitat and areas of suitable habitat outside of the modeled habitat) within 650 feet of either side of the right-of-way and other areas where Project impacts will occur will be 100 percent surveyed by BLM-approved individual(s) prior to final design of the transmission line, the geotechnical investigation, or any other construction activities. Surveys will be coordinated with the Utah Field Office of the FWS and conducted in accordance with agency-approved methods and protocols.

 Clay Phacelia Conservation Measure 3. All occupied sites, including occupied habitat identified during field surveys, will be avoided by Project activities inside and outside the right- of-way (including structures, facilities, new roads, upgrades to existing roads, and overland

Energy Gateway South Transmission Project B1-52 Plan of Development Appendix B1 – Biological Resources Conservation Plan November 2016

vehicle traffic) by at least 650 feet. Section 7 consultation will be reinitiated if any impacts are anticipated within 650 feet of occupied clay phacelia habitat.

 Clay Phacelia Conservation Measure 4. For any activities associated with the geotechnical investigation, the following requirements apply:  All work within 650 feet of occupied clay phacelia habitat will be moved or abandoned.  All work within 650 feet of suitable habitat will be monitored by a biological monitor to ensure compliance with all applicable conservation measures.  Existing access roads within 650 feet of suitable clay phacelia habitat may be used but not improved.

 Clay Phacelia Conservation Measure 5. Appropriate erosion control measures (e.g., silt fence, straw wattles) will be constructed where disturbance occurs within 650 feet of suitable habitat or if such measures are needed to prevent sedimentation or dust deposition in suitable habitat.

 Clay Phacelia Conservation Measure 6. A qualified, BLM-approved botanist will be onsite to monitor surface-disturbing activities when clay phacelia suitable habitat is within 650 feet of any surface-disturbing activities. In addition to ensuring compliance with all applicable conservation measures, the botanist also will:  Make areas for avoidance visually identifiable in the field (e.g., flagging, temporary fencing, rebar, etc.) before and during construction  Provide the FWS and BLM with a postconstruction report of compliance with conservation measures and any activities within 650 feet of suitable clay phacelia habitat.

 Clay Phacelia Conservation Measure 7. Only water (no chemicals, reclaimed production water or other) will be used for dust abatement measures in suitable clay phacelia habitat.

 Clay Phacelia Conservation Measure 8. Dust abatement will be employed during maintenance activities in field-verified suitable clay phacelia habitat over the life of the Project during the time of the year when the plant is most vulnerable to dust-related impacts (March through August).

 Clay Phacelia Conservation Measure 9. The following restrictions apply to herbicide use in suitable or occupied clay phacelia habitat:  No aerial or broadcast herbicide treatments will be applied for vegetation management within 2,500 feet of suitable or occupied clay phacelia habitat.  If aerial or broadcast spraying is needed for noxious weed control within 2,500 feet of suitable or occupied clay phacelia habitat, a weed management plan will be developed in coordination with the FWS and consultation will be reinitiated.

 Clay Phacelia Conservation Measure 10. Upgrades to existing access roads in suitable habitat will be limited such that it has minimal impact on clay phacelia habitat, eliminates the need to construct a new road, or is necessary for safety.

 Clay Phacelia Conservation Measure 11. Surface reclamation will occur for any Project-related ground-disturbing activity. The method of reclamation will normally consist of, but is not limited to, salvaging; segregating and restoring topsoil; returning disturbed areas back to their natural contour; reseeding using seed mixes developed in coordination with the BLM, USFS, and FWS botanists; installing cross drains for erosion control; placing water bars in the road; and filling ditches.

Energy Gateway South Transmission Project B1-53 Plan of Development Appendix B1 – Biological Resources Conservation Plan November 2016

B1.4.2.2 Clay Reed-mustard Conservation Measures The conservation measures for clay reed-mustard, developed through the Section 7 consultation process and included in the BA are provided below. The conservation measures are consistent with the conservation measures developed through the EIS process and the avoidance of impacts required under the mitigation hierarchy.

Design, Engineering, and Preparation of the Plan of Development

 Clay Reed-mustard Conservation Measure 1. Pre-project habitat assessments will be completed across 100 percent of the disturbance area in FWS-mapped potential habitat prior to any ground-disturbing activities to determine if suitable clay reed-mustard habitat is present.

 Clay Reed-mustard Conservation Measure 2. Site inventories will be conducted in suitable habitat (defined as areas which contain or exhibit the specific components or constituents necessary for plant persistence; determined by field inspection and/or surveys; may or may not contain clay reed-mustard) to determine occupancy. Where standard surveys are technically infeasible and otherwise hazardous due to topography, slope, etc., suitable habitat will be assessed and mapped for avoidance (hereafter, avoidance areas); in such cases, 300-foot buffers will be maintained between surface-disturbance and avoidance areas. However, site-specific distances will need to be approved by the FWS and BLM whenever disturbance will occur upslope of habitat. Where conditions allow, inventories:  Must be conducted by qualified, BLM-approved individual(s) and according to BLM- and FWS-accepted survey protocols  Will be conducted in suitable and occupied habitat for all areas proposed for surface disturbance prior to initiation of Project activities and in the same growing season at a time when the plant can be detected (usually May 1 to June 5, in the Uinta Basin; however, surveyors will verify that the plant is flowering by contacting a BLM or FWS botanist or demonstrating that the nearest known population is in flower)  Will occur within 300 feet of Project-related disturbance  Will include, but not be limited to, plant species lists and habitat characteristics  Will be valid until May 1 of the following year

 Clay Reed-mustard Conservation Measure 5. Project-related surface disturbance will avoid all occupied habitat by 300 feet. Project infrastructure will be designed to avoid direct disturbance and minimize indirect impacts on populations and to individual plants. This will include the following considerations:  To avoid water flow and/or sedimentation into occupied habitat and avoidance areas, silt fences, hay bales, and similar structures or practices will be incorporated into Project design; appropriate placement of fill is encouraged.

Construction, Operation, and Maintenance

 Clay Reed-mustard Conservation Measure 3. For any activities associated with the geotechnical investigation the following requirements apply:  All work within 300 feet of occupied clay reed-mustard habitat will be moved or abandoned.  All work within 300 feet of suitable habitat will be monitored by a biological monitor to ensure compliance with all applicable conservation measures.  Existing access roads within 300 feet of suitable clay reed-mustard habitat may be used but not improved.

Energy Gateway South Transmission Project B1-54 Plan of Development Appendix B1 – Biological Resources Conservation Plan November 2016

 Clay Reed-mustard Conservation Measure 4. Project infrastructure will be designed to minimize impacts in suitable habitat. This will include the following considerations:  Where standard surveys are technically infeasible, infrastructure and activities will avoid all suitable habitat by 300 feet. However, site-specific distances will need to be approved by the FWS and BLM when disturbance will occur upslope of habitat.  New access route creation will be limited.  Roads and utilities will share common right-of-ways where possible.  The width of roads will be reduced and the depth of excavation needed for the road bed will be minimized; where feasible, the natural ground surface will be used for roads in suitable habitat.  Signing will be placed to limit off-road travel in sensitive areas.  Activities will be constrained to designated routes and other cleared/approved areas.

 Clay Reed-mustard Conservation Measure 6. A qualified, BLM-approved biologist or botanist must be onsite preconstruction to clearly mark or flag avoidance areas so they are visible during construction. Qualified personnel also will be present during construction to monitor avoidance of these areas. A postconstruction report documenting compliance and noncompliance with these measures will be prepared by the qualified personnel and submitted to the FWS.

 Clay Reed-mustard Conservation Measure 7. Dust abatement will occur during the peak flowering season (April through May) and only water will be used within 300 feet of suitable habitat.

 Clay Reed-mustard Conservation Measure 8. The following restrictions apply to herbicide use in suitable or occupied clay reed-mustard habitat:  No aerial or broadcast herbicide treatments will be applied for vegetation management within 2,500 feet of suitable or occupied clay reed-mustard habitat.  For noxious weed control within 2,500 feet of suitable or occupied clay reed-mustard habitat, manual spot treatments (i.e., backpack sprayers) shall be used.  All those involved in the herbicide application shall be accompanied by a qualified botanist/ecologist familiar with clay reed-mustard to help herbicide applicators identify reed- mustard and avoid impacts on individual plants.  Treatments would not be done when wind speeds exceed 6 miles per hour.  Drift-reducing agents shall be used when practical.  A reduced application rate would be used.  Pump pressure would be reduced, per label instructions.  Droplet size would be increased to the largest size possible while still effectively covering the target vegetation. This could be accomplished using larger nozzles or reduced pressure.  Herbicides shall be stored in spill-proof containers away from special status plant habitats.

B1.4.2.3 Deseret Milkvetch Conservation Measures The conservation measures for Deseret milkvetch, developed through the Section 7 consultation process and included in the BA are provided below. The conservation measures are consistent with the conservation measures developed through the EIS process and the avoidance of impacts required under the mitigation hierarchy

Energy Gateway South Transmission Project B1-55 Plan of Development Appendix B1 – Biological Resources Conservation Plan November 2016

Design, Engineering, and Preparation of the Plan of Development

 Deseret Milkvetch Conservation Measure 1. Focused-intuitive surveys will be conducted along the proposed right-of-way to identify and survey any previously unidentified areas of potentially suitable Deseret milkvetch habitat. Surveys will occur in all areas of potentially suitable habitat. Potentially suitable habitat will be identified based on a geographic information system (GIS) exercise to identify survey areas prepared by the BLM and Proponent coordination with the FWS Utah Field Office. The GIS exercise will help identify habitats that may be suitable for the species on west through south aspects of the Moroni formation. The identification of suitable habitat will be refined by review of aerial imagery and bounded by the Section 7 consultation boundary provided by the FWS. Suitable habitat parameters developed by the FWS (Attachment E) will be used to identify appropriate survey areas.

 Deseret Milkvetch Conservation Measure 2. If the Project can avoid all suitable habitat (as documented during the focused-intuitive surveys) and occupied habitat (as documented) within a 300-foot buffer, no surveys are necessary. If avoidance of suitable habitat is not possible, surveys will be performed within 300 feet of the Project area to determine occupancy prior to construction or 400 feet if upslope of suitable or occupied habitat. If surveys are necessary, they must be performed by qualified, BLM-approved individual(s) and according to FWS-accepted survey protocols. Surveys will be conducted during the flowering and/or fruiting period when the plant can be detected and correctly identified. Surveys will be valid for one calendar year.

 Deseret Milkvetch Conservation Measure 4. No new development or permanent ground disturbance, including poles, pads, towers, etc., will occur within a 300-foot buffer of occupied Deseret milkvetch habitat. If construction activities occur upslope of occupied habitat, the buffer may be increased to 400 feet to prevent additional erosion in the habitat.

 Deseret Milkvetch Conservation Measure 6. No new roads will be established within a 300- foot buffer of occupied Deseret milkvetch habitat. If construction activities occur upslope of occupied habitat, the buffer may be increased to 400 feet to prevent additional erosion in the habitat. Existing access roads will be used to the extent practicable to limit additional fragmentation in the species’ habitat from new road development that avoid occupied habitat.

 Deseret Milkvetch Conservation Measure 7. The existing access road to the north of Birdseye that connects to Blind Canyon Road contains plants alongside the road and within 300 feet of the road edge. This road will not be used for any Project-related activities.

Construction, Operation, and Maintenance

 Deseret Milkvetch Conservation Measure 3. For any activities associated with the geotechnical investigation, the following requirements apply:  All work within 300 feet (400 feet if upslope) of occupied Deseret milkvetch habitat will be moved or abandoned.  All work within 300 feet of suitable habitat will be monitored by a biological monitor to ensure compliance with all applicable conservation measures.  Existing access roads within 300 feet of suitable Deseret milkvetch habitat may be used but not improved.

 Deseret Milkvetch Conservation Measure 5. Wire will be strung between towers aerially with no ground disturbance in field-verified habitat or within 300 feet of occupied Deseret milkvetch habitat.

 Deseret Milkvetch Conservation Measure 8. A qualified, BLM-approved biologist or botanist must be onsite preconstruction to clearly mark or flag avoidance areas so they are visible during construction. Qualified personnel also will be present during construction to monitor avoidance of

Energy Gateway South Transmission Project B1-56 Plan of Development Appendix B1 – Biological Resources Conservation Plan November 2016

these areas. A postconstruction report documenting compliance and noncompliance with these measures will be prepared by the qualified personnel and submitted to the FWS no later than 1 month after construction.

 Deseret Milkvetch Conservation Measure 9. After construction, the Project will provide a GIS shapefile or documentation of new and upgraded access routes to the appropriate emergency fire operations personnel with the State of Utah, BLM, USFS, and FWS, as well as a notification statement that there is an ESA-listed plant species in the area of Birdseye, Utah. This information will be provided no later than 1 year after construction of this specific transmission line segment.

 Deseret Milkvetch Conservation Measure 10. No vegetation treatments will be performed within a 300-foot buffer of occupied Deseret milkvetch habitat.

 Deseret Milkvetch Conservation Measure 11. The following restrictions apply to herbicide use in suitable or occupied Deseret milkvetch habitat:

 No aerial or broadcast herbicide treatments will be applied for vegetation management within 2,500 feet of suitable or occupied Deseret milkvetch habitat.

 For noxious weed control within 2,500 feet of suitable or occupied Deseret milkvetch habitat, manual spot treatments (i.e., backpack sprayers) shall be used.

 All those involved in the herbicide application shall be accompanied by a qualified botanist/ecologist familiar with Deseret milkvetch to help herbicide applicators identify Deseret milkvetch and avoid impacts on individual plants.

 Treatments would not be done when wind speeds exceed 6 miles per hour.

 Drift-reducing agents shall be used when practical.

 A reduced application rate would be used.

 Pump pressure would be reduced, per label instructions.

 Droplet size would be increased to the largest size possible while still effectively covering the target vegetation. This could be accomplished using larger nozzles or reduced pressure.

 Herbicides shall be stored in spill-proof containers away from special status plant habitats.

B1.4.2.4 Shrubby Reed-mustard Conservation Measures The conservation measures for shrubby reed-mustard, developed through the Section 7 consultation process and included in the BA are provided below. The conservation measures are consistent with the conservation measures developed through the EIS process and the avoidance of impacts required under the mitigation hierarchy.

Design, Engineering, and Preparation of the Plan of Development

 Shrubby Reed-mustard Conservation Measure 1. Prior to construction, FWS-mapped potentially suitable habitat within 300 feet of any Project-related activity will be 100 percent surveyed by BLM-approved botanists following appropriate FWS guidelines.

 Shrubby Reed-mustard Conservation Measure 3. New surface disturbance is prohibited within 300 feet of occupied shrubby reed-mustard habitat.

 Shrubby Reed-mustard Conservation Measure 5. Wrinkles Road will not be used for any Project-related activities.

Energy Gateway South Transmission Project B1-57 Plan of Development Appendix B1 – Biological Resources Conservation Plan November 2016

Construction, Operation, and Maintenance

 Shrubby Reed-mustard Conservation Measure 2. For any activities associated with the geotechnical investigation, the following requirements apply:  All work within 300 feet of occupied shrubby reed-mustard habitat will be moved or abandoned.  All work within 300 feet of suitable habitat will be monitored by a biological monitor to ensure compliance with all applicable conservation measures.  Existing access roads within 300 feet of suitable shrubby reed-mustard habitat may be used but not improved.

 Shrubby Reed-mustard Conservation Measure 4. In proximity to suitable habitat, all construction activities will be overseen by a biological monitor to ensure compliance with all applicable conservation measures. The biological monitor will also:  Before and during construction, make areas for avoidance visually identifiable in the field (e.g., by flagging, temporary fencing, rebar, etc.)  Provide the FWS and BLM with a postconstruction report of compliance, impacts, and extent of impacts on shrubby reed-mustard

 Shrubby Reed-mustard Conservation Measure 6. Appropriate erosion control measures (silt fencing, hay bales, or other methods) will be taken where Project activities occur within 300 feet upslope of suitable habitat.

 Shrubby Reed-mustard Conservation Measure 7. The following restrictions apply to herbicide use in suitable or occupied shrubby reed-mustard habitat:  No aerial or broadcast herbicide treatments will be applied for vegetation management within 2,500 feet of suitable or occupied shrubby reed-mustard habitat.  For noxious weed control within 2,500 feet of suitable or occupied shrubby reed-mustard habitat, manual spot treatments (i.e., backpack sprayers) shall be used.  All those involved in the herbicide application shall be accompanied by a qualified botanist/ecologist familiar with shrubby reed-mustard to help herbicide applicators identify shrubby reed-mustard and avoid impacts on individual plants.  Treatments would not be done when wind speeds exceed 6 miles per hour.  Drift-reducing agents shall be used when practical.  A reduced application rate would be used.  Pump pressure would be reduced, per label instructions.  Droplet size would be increased to the largest size possible while still effectively covering the target vegetation. This could be accomplished using larger nozzles or reduced pressure.  Herbicides shall be stored in spill-proof containers away from special status plant habitats.

 Shrubby Reed-mustard Conservation Measure 8. Dust abatement will occur during the peak flowering season (April 15 through August 15) and only water will be used within 300 feet of suitable habitat.

B1.4.2.5 Uinta Basin Hookless Cactus Conservation Measures The conservation measures for Uinta Basin hookless cactus, developed through the Section 7 consultation process and included in the BA, are provided below. The conservation measures are consistent with the conservation measures developed through the EIS process and the avoidance of impacts required under the mitigation hierarchy.

Energy Gateway South Transmission Project B1-58 Plan of Development Appendix B1 – Biological Resources Conservation Plan November 2016

Design, Engineering, and Preparation of the Plan of Development

 Uinta Basin Hookless Cactus Conservation Measure 1. Surveys for Uinta Basin hookless cactus will be conducted prior to final design of the Project using survey protocols developed for the Project through coordination with the BLM and FWS (Attachment F).

 Uinta Basin Hookless Cactus Conservation Measure 2. All Uinta Basin hookless cactus transplant sites and study plots will be avoided to the extent possible.

 Uinta Basin Hookless Cactus Conservation Measure 3. Right-of-way placement within 300 feet of occupied Uinta Basin hookless cactus habitat will be avoided to the extent possible.

 Uinta Basin Hookless Cactus Conservation Measure 5. Permanent and temporary disturbance will be sited to: (1) maximize the distance from adjacent Uinta Basin hookless cactus, (2) minimize impacts on the maximum number of cacti technically feasible, and (3) minimize the overall surface disturbance area without compromising safety.

Construction, Operation, and Maintenance

 Uinta Basin Hookless Cactus Conservation Measure 4. For any activities associated with the geotechnical investigation, the following requirements apply:  All work requiring Uinta Basin hookless cactus to be transplanted will be moved or abandoned.  All work within 300 feet of suitable or occupied habitat will be monitored by a biological monitor to ensure compliance with all applicable conservation measures.  Alternative, low-impact geotechnical investigation methods will be used within 300 feet of occupied habitat. These methods could include walk-in or helicopter-assisted drilling and will be subject to BLM and FWS approval.  Existing access roads within 300 feet of suitable Uinta Basin hookless cactus habitat may be used, but not improved.

 Uinta Basin Hookless Cactus Conservation Measure 6. Construction will occur downslope of plants and populations where feasible and avoid concentrating water flows or sediments to plants. Appropriate erosion/sedimentation control measures (i.e., silt fencing, straw wattles) will be used to protect Uinta Basin hookless cactus within 300 feet and downslope or downwind of surface disturbance. Fencing is intended to prevent sedimentation or dust deposition and will be evaluated for effectiveness by a qualified, BLM-approved botanist.

 Uinta Basin Hookless Cactus Conservation Measure 7. A qualified, BLM-approved botanist will be onsite to flag cacti or avoidance areas, train construction crews on how to avoid cacti, and ensure that construction and activities avoid or minimize damage to habitat when Uinta Basin hookless cactus is within 300 feet of any surface-disturbing activities.

 Uinta Basin Hookless Cactus Conservation Measure 8. Dust abatement (consisting of water only) will occur during construction and maintenance activities within the Sclerocactus potential habitat polygon over the life of the Project. Dust abatement will occur during the time of the year when cactus is most vulnerable to dust-related impacts (March 1 through August 31).

 Uinta Basin Hookless Cactus Conservation Measure 9. Ground-disturbing activities will occur outside of the flowering season, typically March 15 to June 30, in the Sclerocactus potential habitat polygon (including CCA1 and 2) as defined by the FWS. This will avoid adverse impacts on Sclerocactus reproductive success due to the high volumes of dust produced during construction and ground-disturbing activities.

 Uinta Basin Hookless Cactus Conservation Measure 10. A 15-mile-per-hour speed limit for all construction personnel will be implemented within 300 feet of occupied habitat.

Energy Gateway South Transmission Project B1-59 Plan of Development Appendix B1 – Biological Resources Conservation Plan November 2016

 Speed limit signs will be posted for Project personnel.  Signing will be posted to limit off-road travel in sensitive areas.

 Uinta Basin Hookless Cactus Conservation Measure 11. The FWS will be contacted within 24 hours in the event of any emergency or unforeseen situation in which cacti or habitat will be damaged or lost.

 Uinta Basin Hookless Cactus Conservation Measure 12. All disturbed areas in the Sclerocactus potential habitat polygon will be reclaimed using seed mixes composed mostly of native species developed in coordination with the BLM botanist and the FWS and final approval will be provided by the BLM.

 Uinta Basin Hookless Cactus Conservation Measure 13. Postconstruction monitoring for invasive species will be required. Noxious weeds in Sclerocactus habitat will follow mitigation measures identified in the BLM’s 2007 Programmatic EIS for Vegetation Treatments using Herbicides. Coordination would occur with the BLM Vernal Field Office weed coordinator prior to noxious weed management in Sclerocactus habitat.

 Uinta Basin Hookless Cactus Conservation Measure 14. Where complete avoidance of individual cacti is not feasible, all cacti located in the areas required to be disturbed by the Project will be transplanted by a qualified botanist according to FWS protocols. Only cacti that were not previously transplanted or used as control plants for Uinta Basin hookless cactus monitoring studies would be allowed to be affected during this Project and potentially transplanted. The number of cacti to be transplanted would be calculated after the surveys are completed. A 10-year monitoring plan, specific to Uinta Basin hookless cactus, will be developed in coordination with the FWS for all transplanted cacti.  Cacti shall be transplanted into high quality unoccupied suitable habitat or habitat with a few scattered individuals within the range of the species to prevent disruption and competition with occupied sites. Recipient sites should be coordinated with botanists from the BLM and FWS. Up to 30 of the cacti to be transplanted can instead be donated to up to three Center for Plant Conservation-designated botanical gardens for education or formation of an ex-situ collection as determined by the BLM and FWS botanists in coordination with the recipient garden.

 Uinta Basin Hookless Cactus Conservation Measure 15. Mitigation will be required in occupied suitable habitat based on the results of surveys and residual impacts. A monetary amount will be contributed to the Sclerocactus Mitigation Fund to aid in the recovery of Sclerocactus species affected by the Project. The payment will be calculated using the Sclerocactus compensatory mitigation calculation table provided by the FWS upon completion of surveys and final engineering design. The primary purpose of the mitigation fund is to implement conservation and restoration activities for Sclerocactus and its habitat or to acquire suitable or occupied habitat.

 Uinta Basin Hookless Cactus Conservation Measure 16. Additional measures to avoid or minimize effects on the species may be developed and implemented in consultation with the FWS to ensure continued compliance with the ESA.

B1.4.2.6 Ute Ladies'-tresses Conservation Measures The conservation measures for Ute ladies’-tresses, developed through the Section 7 consultation process and included in the BA are provided below. The conservation measures are consistent with the conservation measures developed through the EIS process and the avoidance of impacts required under the mitigation hierarchy.

Energy Gateway South Transmission Project B1-60 Plan of Development Appendix B1 – Biological Resources Conservation Plan November 2016

Design, Engineering, and Preparation of the Plan of Development

 Ute Ladies’-tresses Conservation Measure 1. Field habitat assessments will be conducted to identify areas of potentially suitable Ute ladies tresses habitat in the Project area where surveys will be conducted. Field habitat assessments:  Must be conducted by qualified individual(s) approved by the BLM and FWS  Will occur during the growing season  Will occur within 300 feet of any planned disturbance or areas likely to experience hydrology changes resulting from Project activities  Will identify habitat meeting the criteria described in 1992 Interim Survey Requirements for Ute ladies’-tresses Orchid (FWS 1992) and Rangewide Status Review of Ute Ladies’-Tresses (Spiranthes diluvialis) (Fertig et. al 2005)  Will exclude habitats meeting the following criteria: . Appropriate hydrology not present, typically indicated by o area comprising mostly upland vegetation o area that dries up by mid-July with a water table lower than 12 to 18 inches below the soil surface . Heavy clay soils present . Soils strongly alkaline . Site heavily disturbed, such as, for example: o Stream banks channelized and stabilized by heavy rip-rap o Highway rights-of-way built on filled or compacted soil or rock material o Construction sites where construction has either stripped the topsoil or where construction has been completed within the last 5 years but the area has not been revegetated (Ute ladies'-tresses orchid has been found in some heavily disturbed sites where hydrology is appropriate, such as revegetated gravel pits, heavily grazed riparian edges and pastures, and along well-traveled trails developed on old berms) o Stream banks steep, transition from stream margin to upland areas abrupt o Site characterized by standing water with cattails, bulrushes, and other emergent aquatic vegetation- note margins may be suitable habitat o Riparian areas, stream banks, or wetlands vegetated with dense rhizomatous species, such as reed canary grass (Phalaris arundinacea), tamarisk or salt cedar (Tamarix ramosissima), teasel (Dipsacus sylvestris), common reed (Phragmites australis), or saltgrass (Distichlis spicata) o Riparian areas overgrazed or otherwise managed such that the vegetation community is comprising upland native or weedy species or is unvegetated (the orchid can tolerate rather extreme overgrazing as long as it has not resulted in a drop in the water table as indicated by conversion of the riparian or wet meadow pasture vegetation community to mostly upland species) o Potential habitat is no longer in a natural condition, for example, has been converted to agricultural uses and is now plowed and cropped, or has been converted to lawns or golf courses (wet meadow pastures with a mix of native and non-native pasture grasses, including pastures that are regularly hayed, are suitable potential habitat) o Wetland is a brackish playa or pothole not fed by springs or not in the floodplain of or hydrologically connected with a riparian system or other source of fresh water (fens and wetlands associated fresh water springs are suitable potential habitat)

Energy Gateway South Transmission Project B1-61 Plan of Development Appendix B1 – Biological Resources Conservation Plan November 2016

 Ute Ladies’-tresses Conservation Measure 2. Surveys to determine Ute ladies’-tresses habitat occupancy will be conducted in suitable habitat. The following requirements for inventories apply:  Must be conducted by qualified individual(s) and according to 1992 Interim Survey Requirements for Ute ladies’-tresses Orchid (FWS 1992)  Will not occur in areas where existing roads would be used without improvement  Will be conducted at a time when the plant can be detected and during appropriate flowering periods  Will be conducted for at least 1 year prior to any temporary disturbance in suitable habitat (e.g., overland travel to access geotechnical boring location). Two additional years of surveys would be conducted after the temporary disturbance for a total of 3 years of surveys  Three consecutive years of surveys will be required prior to any permanent disturbance (e.g., road widening, new road construction, placement of other infrastructure)

 Ute Ladies’-tresses Conservation Measure 5. Project-related construction activities will avoid individual plants by a minimum of 300 feet. In proximity to occupied habitat, Project infrastructure will be designed to avoid direct disturbance and minimize indirect impacts on populations and to individual plants:  Follow recommendations for Project design in suitable habitats.  Create designs that will avoid altering site hydrology and concentrating water flows or sediments into occupied habitat. Minimize the disturbed area through interim and final reclamation. Reclaim disturbance

Construction, Operation, and Maintenance

 Ute Ladies’-tresses Conservation Measure 3. For any activities associated with the geotechnical investigation the following requirements apply:  All work within 300 feet of occupied Ute ladies’-tresses habitat will be moved or abandoned.  All work within 300 feet of suitable habitat will be monitored by a biological monitor to ensure compliance with all applicable conservation measures.  Existing access roads within 300 feet of suitable Ute ladies’-tresses habitat may be used, but not improved.

 Ute Ladies’-tresses Conservation Measure 4. Design Project infrastructure to minimize direct or indirect impacts on suitable habitat both in and downstream of the Project area:  Alteration and disturbance of hydrology will not be permitted.  Disturbance footprint size should be reduced to the minimum needed, without compromising safety.  New access routes for the Project should be limited.  Roads and utilities should share common right-of-ways where possible.  Rights-of-way widths should be reduced and the depth of excavation needed for the road bed should be minimized.  Construction and right-of-way management measures should avoid soil compaction that would impact Ute ladies’-tresses habitat.  Offsite impacts or indirect impacts should be avoided or minimized (i.e., install berms or catchment ditches to prevent spilled materials from reaching occupied or suitable habitat through either surface or groundwater).  Signing should be placed to limit off-road travel in sensitive areas.

Energy Gateway South Transmission Project B1-62 Plan of Development Appendix B1 – Biological Resources Conservation Plan November 2016

 Vehicles and equipment should be made to stay on designated routes and other cleared/approved areas.  All disturbed areas will be revegetated with species approved by FWS and BLM botanists.

 Ute Ladies’-tresses Conservation Measure 6. In proximity to occupied habitat, all construction activities will be overseen by a biological monitor to ensure compliance with all applicable conservation measures. The biological monitor will also:  Make areas for avoidance visually identifiable in the field (e.g., flagging, temporary fencing, rebar, etc.) before and during construction.  Provide the FWS and BLM with a postconstruction report of compliance, impacts, and extent of impacts on Ute ladies’-tresses no later than 4 months upon Project completion.

 Ute Ladies’-tresses Conservation Measure 7. The following restrictions apply to herbicide use in suitable or occupied Ute ladies’-tresses habitat:  No aerial or broadcast herbicide treatments will be applied for vegetation management within 2,500 feet of suitable or occupied Ute ladies’-tresses habitat.  For noxious weed control within 2,500 feet of suitable or occupied Ute ladies’-tresses habitat, manual spot treatments (i.e. backpack sprayers) shall be used.  All those involved in the herbicide application shall be accompanied by a qualified botanist/ecologist familiar with Ute ladies’-tresses to help herbicide applicators identify Ute ladies’-tresses and avoid impacts on individual plants.  Treatments would not be done when wind speeds exceed 6 miles per hour.  Drift-reducing agents shall be used when practical.  A reduced application rate would be used.  Pump pressure would be reduced, per label instructions.  Droplet size would be increased to the largest size possible while still effectively covering the target vegetation. This could be accomplished using larger nozzles or reduced pressure.  Herbicides shall be stored in spill-proof containers away from special status plant habitats.

 Ute Ladies’-tresses Conservation Measure 8. Notify the FWS immediately if any Ute Ladies’- tresses are located during surveys or monitoring. In the event that Ute Ladies tresses are located, additional discussions between the BLM and FWS will be conducted to review site plans and ensure that the appropriate avoidance measures are implemented.

B1.4.2.7 Endangered Species Act-listed Colorado River Fish Species Conservation Measures The FWS addresses the effects of water depletions for Colorado River species during Section 7 consultation through the Upper Colorado River Endangered Fish Recovery Program and a programmatic BO for the Yampa River Basin (FWS 2005). Conservation measures for ESA-listed Colorado River fish include paying a depletion fee assessed by the Upper Colorado River Endangered Fish Recovery Program for water-related activities that cause more than 100 acre-feet of depletions.

The conservation measures are consistent with the conservation measures developed through the EIS process and the minimization and mitigation of impacts required under the mitigation hierarchy.

Design, Engineering, and Preparation of the Plan of Development

 Colorado River Multi-species Conservation Measure 4. No surface disturbance, staging areas, or permanent structures will be located in the 100-year floodplain of the Green and White rivers.

Energy Gateway South Transmission Project B1-63 Plan of Development Appendix B1 – Biological Resources Conservation Plan November 2016

 Colorado River Multi-species Conservation Measure 5. For any activities within the 100-year floodplain of the Yampa River, the following conservation measures will apply:  Construction and maintenance in the floodplain of the Yampa River will take place during seasonal low flows.  Ground disturbance and vegetation clearing will be located in areas that avoid or minimize impacts on PCEs.  Ground disturbance and vegetation clearing will be minimized in the Yampa River floodplain. Drive-and-crush access and construction techniques will be used to the extent feasible. In areas where vegetation drive-and-crush access and construction techniques are not feasible, the least impactful technique will be used. In areas where vegetation clearing is necessary, vegetation will be trimmed with the root balls left intact and in place wherever practical.  No permanent access roads will be constructed in the 100-year floodplain. Any grading activities will be conducted in a way that avoids altering seasonal flow regimes.  All temporary disturbance in the floodplain will be promptly stabilized and reclaimed to minimize the potential for erosion.  Soil stabilization and erosion control measures will be implemented during construction and through completion of reclamation activities. Specific erosion control measures will be developed in coordination with the FWS and will be identified in the Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan, which is a component of the POD.

 Colorado River Multi-species Conservation Measure 10. The Proponent will develop and implement, as a part of the construction compliance management system committed to in the POD, a tracking tool to record water use during construction. The tracking tool will ensure that all depletions are properly recorded and any required fees for depletions in the Colorado River basin are assessed and paid to the Upper Colorado River Endangered Fish Recovery Program.

Construction, Operation, and Maintenance

 Colorado River Multi-species Conservation Measure 1. No construction equipment will operate in or cross the actively flowing channel of the Green, White, or Yampa rivers.

 Colorado River Multi-species Conservation Measure 2. Materials will not be stockpiled in the 100-year floodplain of the Green, White, or Yampa rivers or any wetlands connected to those rivers.

 Colorado River Multi-species Conservation Measure 3. To avoid entrainment of ESA-listed fish species, surface water will not be taken from the Green, White, or Yampa rivers or their tributaries.

 Colorado River Multi-species Conservation Measure 6. Prior to any vegetation removal in critical habitat for Colorado River fish, a preconstruction site will be attended by the BLM, the FWS, the Proponent, and construction representatives to discuss implementation of measures designed to protect riparian function and critical habitat for Colorado River fish.

 Colorado River Multi-species Conservation Measure 7. Refueling and storing potentially hazardous materials will not occur within the 100-year floodplain of the White, Green, and Yampa rivers and their perennial tributaries. Spill-preventive practices and containment measures will be incorporated into the Water Resources Protection Plan, which will be developed as a part of the POD.

 Colorado River Multi-species Conservation Measure 8. No aerial or broadcast herbicide treatments will be applied for vegetation management within 2,500 feet of bonytail, Colorado pikeminnow, humpback chub, or razorback sucker designated critical habitat.

Energy Gateway South Transmission Project B1-64 Plan of Development Appendix B1 – Biological Resources Conservation Plan November 2016

 For noxious weed control within 2,500 feet of bonytail, Colorado pikeminnow, humpback chub, or razorback sucker designated critical habitat, the following restrictions apply:  Herbicides will not be applied over surface water. Only agency-approved herbicides registered for use near water will be used within 328 feet of surface water or in areas with a high leaching potential. Minimum pesticide spray distances (buffers) from surface water are as follows: . Backpack spraying operations – 20 feet . Other mechanized applications (e.g., truck or all-terrain vehicle mounted equipment) – 50 feet

 Colorado River Multi-species Conservation Measure 9. All required depletion fees would be paid by the Proponent within the required timeframe. At a minimum, 10 percent would be paid at the time the BLM issues a Record of Decision. The remaining balance would be paid when water use commences for the Project.

B1.4.2.8 June Sucker Conservation Measures The conservation measures for June sucker, developed through the Section 7 consultation process and included in the BA, are provided below. The conservation measures are consistent with the conservation measures developed through the EIS process and the avoidance of impacts required under the mitigation hierarchy.

Construction, Operation, and Maintenance

 June Sucker Conservation Measure 1. Refueling and storing potentially hazardous materials in the Jordan River basin will not occur within a 328-foot radius of any tributaries of Utah Lake known to support June sucker spawning. Spill-preventive practices and containment measures will be incorporated into the Water Resources Protection Plan, which will be developed as a part of the POD.

 June Sucker Conservation Measure 2. No aerial or broadcast herbicide treatments will be applied for vegetation management within 2,500 feet of June sucker designated critical habitat. For noxious weed control within 2,500 feet of June sucker designated critical habitat, the following restrictions apply:  Herbicides will not be applied over surface water. Only agency-approved herbicides registered for use near water will be used within 328 feet of surface water or in areas with a high leaching potential. Minimum pesticide spray distances (buffers) from surface water are as follows:  Backpack spraying operations – 20 feet  Other mechanized applications (e.g., truck or all-terrain vehicle mounted equipment) – 50 feet

 June Sucker Conservation Measure 3. Ground clearing will be minimized in the floodplain of any tributaries of Utah Lake known to support June sucker spawning, and vegetation will be trimmed with the root balls left intact and in place wherever practical. All temporary disturbances in the floodplain will be promptly stabilized and reclaimed to minimize the potential for erosion. Soil stabilization and erosion control measures will be stipulated in the Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan, which is a component of the POD.

Energy Gateway South Transmission Project B1-65 Plan of Development Appendix B1 – Biological Resources Conservation Plan November 2016

B1.4.2.9 Platte River Species – Least Tern, Piping Plover, Pallid Sturgeon, Western prairie fringed orchid, Whooping Crane Conservation Measures The FWS addresses the effects of water depletions for Platte River species during Section 7 consultation through a programmatic BO (FWS 2006). The conservation measures for least tern, piping plover, pallid sturgeon, Western prairie fringed orchid, and whooping crane developed through the Section 7 consultation process and included in the BA are provided below. The conservation measures are consistent with the conservation measures developed through the EIS process and the avoidance of impacts required under the mitigation hierarchy.

Design, Engineering, and Preparation of the Plan of Development

 Platte River Multi-species Conservation Measure 1. All water used in construction of the Project would be acquired from previously allocated sources already subject to Section 7 consultation.

 Platte River Multi-species Conservation Measure 2. All required depletion fees would be paid by the Company at the time of water acquisition.

B1.4.2.10 Mexican Spotted Owl

Conservation Measures The conservation measures for Mexican spotted owl, developed through the Section 7 consultation process and included in the BA are provided below. The conservation measures are consistent with the conservation measures developed through the EIS process and the avoidance of impacts required under the mitigation hierarchy. Refer to Attachment G - Seasonal and Spatial Restrictions for Biological Resources for additional stipulations that may be required by individual BLM field offices.

Design, Engineering, and Preparation of the Plan of Development

 Mexican Spotted Owl Conservation Measure 1. Potentially suitable habitat assessments, including field verification, will be completed using BLM- and FWS-approved methods prior to final design of the transmission line and initiation of construction activities.

 Mexican Spotted Owl Conservation Measure 4. The placement of permanent structures within 0.5 mile of suitable habitat identified during the habitat assessment will be avoided unless Mexican spotted owl suitable habitat is surveyed and determined to be unoccupied.

Construction, Operation, and Maintenance

 Mexican Spotted Owl Conservation Measure 2. For any activities associated with the geotechnical investigation, the following restrictions will apply:  Geotechnical activities will not be conducted within 0.5 mile of potentially suitable habitat identified during the habitat assessment between March 1 and August 31.  Existing access roads located in potentially suitable habitat identified during the habitat assessment and within 0.5 mile of potentially suitable habitat identified during the habitat assessment may be used but not improved.

 Mexican Spotted Owl Conservation Measure 3. Surveys will be conducted for 2 years prior to construction activities within 0.5 mile of construction activities in potentially suitable habitat identified during the habitat assessment. Surveys will be conducted according to FWS-approved methods. If owls are found, no actions will occur within 0.5 mile of identified nest sites between

Energy Gateway South Transmission Project B1-66 Plan of Development Appendix B1 – Biological Resources Conservation Plan November 2016

March 1 and August 31. If nest site is unknown, no activity will occur within the designated Protected Activity Center between March 1 and August 31.

B1.4.2.11 Yellow-billed Cuckoo Conservation Measures The conservation measures for yellow-billed cuckoo developed through the Section 7 consultation process and included in the BA are provided below. The conservation measures are consistent with the conservation measures developed through the EIS process and the avoidance and minimization of impacts required under the mitigation hierarchy. Refer to Attachment G - Seasonal and Spatial Restrictions for Biological Resources for additional stipulations that may be required by individual BLM field offices.

Design, Engineering, and Preparation of the Plan of Development

 Yellow-billed Cuckoo Conservation Measure 1. Habitat assessments, including field verification, will be completed within 0.5 mile of construction activities according to Guidelines for identification of suitable breeding and nesting habitat for western yellow-billed cuckoo in Utah (FWS 2015) prior to final design of the transmission line and initiation of the geotechnical investigation or other construction activities to identify suitable nesting habitat. Results will be provided to the FWS for review and concurrence.

 Yellow-billed Cuckoo Conservation Measure 2. Protocol breeding season surveys will be conducted in suitable nesting habitat within 0.5 mile of construction activities prior to initiation of the geotechnical investigation or any other construction activities unless species occupancy and distribution information is complete, available, and supports a conclusion that the species is not present or unless otherwise agreed to by the FWS and BLM in response to mitigating factors, such as existing disturbance, screening, or site-specific habitat conditions. All surveys must be conducted according to protocol by surveyors who have attended an FWS-approved yellow-billed cuckoo survey training and are operating under a recovery permit.

 Yellow-billed Cuckoo Conservation Measure 4. Transmission line structures and other permanent or temporary Project facilities (including new access roads, work areas, or other structures) will not be sited in field-verified suitable nesting habitat. Waterways will be spanned in field-verified suitable nesting habitat. For existing access roads, avoid upgrades that would require clearing and pruning riparian vegetation within field-verified suitable nesting habitat.

 Yellow-billed Cuckoo Conservation Measure 5. Microsite or increase the height of tower structures to prevent the need to clear or prune vegetation within field-verified suitable nesting habitat. Should some vegetation management be required to ensure that minimum North American Electric Reliability Council vegetation management standards are maintained in these areas, a proposal that outlines the locations and extent of clearing/pruning will be submitted to the Service to ensure that the effects are not more than insignificant or discountable. If these effects are not insignificant or discountable, then consultation on the western yellow-billed cuckoo would be reinitiated.

Construction, Operation, and Maintenance

 Yellow-billed Cuckoo Conservation Measure 3. For any activities associated with the geotechnical investigation, the following restrictions will apply:  Geotechnical activities will not occur within 0.5 mile of suitable nesting habitat, as determined by the habitat assessments, between June 1 and August 31.  Existing access roads within 0.5 mile of suitable nesting habitat as determined by the habitat assessments, may be used during any time of year, but not improved.

Energy Gateway South Transmission Project B1-67 Plan of Development Appendix B1 – Biological Resources Conservation Plan November 2016

 Geotechnical activity will not occur within suitable yellow-billed cuckoo nesting habitat.

 Yellow-billed Cuckoo Conservation Measure 6. Project activities (e.g., road construction or improvement, geotechnical activities, vegetation management, transmission line construction, right-of-way reclamation, and maintenance activities) will not be conducted within a 0.5-mile buffer of occupied nesting habitat or field-verified suitable nesting habitat that has not been completely surveyed to determine occupancy between June 1 and August 31.

 Yellow-billed Cuckoo Conservation Measure 7. Prior to any vegetation removal or clearing in suitable nesting habitat, as determined by the habitat assessments, shrubs and trees targeted for removal will be flagged for review during a site visit attended by the BLM, the FWS, the Proponent, and construction representatives.

 Yellow-billed Cuckoo Conservation Measure 8. All transmission lines that cross field-verified suitable habitat will be marked to minimize the potential for collisions in coordination with the FWS. Marking will occur from one outer edge of suitable habitat to the outer edge of suitable habitat on the opposite side of the river.

 Yellow-billed Cuckoo Conservation Measure 9. New biological information regarding the yellow-billed cuckoo and potential effects of the Project would be addressed as follows:  Habitat assessment and survey methods, survey areas, and avoidance buffers would be modified to be consistent with updates and revisions to the current 2015 draft survey protocol and habitat assessment guidance issued by the FWS.  Site-specific adjustments to survey and avoidance buffers may be implemented on agreement between the BLM and FWS on a case-by-case basis (e.g., in response to terrain that facilitates or limits noise transmission, or the conditions of the habitat at a specific location) following the interagency preconstruction site visits.

 Yellow-billed Cuckoo Conservation Measure 10. No aerial or broadcast herbicide treatments will be applied within 0.5 mile of field-verified suitable nesting habitat. Within 0.5 mile of field- verified suitable nesting habitat, herbicides will be applied using a backpack spray operation or by hand from an all-terrain vehicle. Only agency-approved herbicides registered for use near water will be used within 300 feet of surface water. Insecticides will not be used within 0.5 mile of field-verified suitable nesting habitat.

B1.4.2.12 Black-footed Ferret Conservation Measures The conservation measures for black-footed ferret, developed through the Section 7 consultation process and included in the BA, are provided below. The conservation measures are consistent with the conservation measures developed through the EIS process and the avoidance and minimization of impacts required under the mitigation hierarchy. Refer to Attachment G – Seasonal and Spatial Restrictions for Biological Resources for additional stipulations that may be required by individual BLM field offices.

All populations of black-footed ferrets crossed by the Project are reintroduced Nonessential Experimental Populations (NEP). The following conservation measures apply only to these NEPs, as no black-footed ferret populations are known to occur outside these reintroduction areas.

Design, Engineering, and Preparation of the Plan of Development

 Black-footed Ferret Conservation Measure 2. In active black-footed ferret reintroduction management areas, the transmission line will be located as close as possible to existing and other planned high voltage transmission lines.

Energy Gateway South Transmission Project B1-68 Plan of Development Appendix B1 – Biological Resources Conservation Plan November 2016

Construction, Operation, and Maintenance

 Black-footed Ferret Conservation Measure 1. For any activities associated with the geotechnical investigation, the following restrictions will apply:  All geotechnical activities located within 0.5 mile of prairie dog colonies in active black- footed ferret reintroduction management areas during the breeding season (March 1 through July 15) will be avoided.  All geotechnical activities in prairie dog colonies in active black-footed ferret reintroduction management areas would be located to avoid damaging prairie dog burrows.  All work in prairie dog colonies in active black-footed ferret reintroduction management areas will be monitored by a biological monitor to ensure compliance with all applicable conservation measures.  Existing access roads in prairie dog colonies in active black-footed ferret reintroduction management areas may be used but not improved.

 Black-footed Ferret Conservation Measure 3. The local BLM field office will be notified 10 to 20 days prior to the initiation of construction activities in active black-footed ferret reintroduction management areas.

 Black-footed Ferret Conservation Measure 4. Vehicle activities will be restricted to daylight hours in occupied black-footed ferret habitat to minimize the risk of vehicle collision.

 Black-footed Ferret Conservation Measure 5. Disruptive activities within 0.5 mile of prairie dog colonies in active black-footed ferret reintroduction management areas will be conducted outside the reproductive period (March 1 through July 15), with special emphasis on avoiding the period between birthing and the emergence of young (May 1 through July 15).

B1.4.2.13 Canada Lynx and Gray Wolf Conservation Measures No conservation measures are proposed specifically for Canada lynx or gray wolf, and no surveys for these species are required. In the event that Canada lynx or gray wolf are observed in the Project area, work must stop and the BLM must be contacted immediately.

B1.4.3 Plant and Wildlife Species Managed by the Bureau of Land Management or U.S. Forest Service as Sensitive Species or Management Indicator Species This section contains conservation measures for BLM- and USFS- sensitive plant and wildlife species located during surveys conducted to inform the engineering design of the Project and inform the POD. Conservation measures for sensitive species not located during these surveys are assumed to not be needed because these species are not expected to occur in the vicinity of the Project. Table B1-1 – Biological Resource Surveys to be Conducted for the Construction Plan of Development provides an overview of the survey findings. However, if any of the species listed in Table B1-1 are not located during surveys conducted prior to completion of the final POD but are located during monitoring, coordination with the appropriate agency and implementation of conservation measures to protect these species will be required.

Conservation measures for BLM-sensitive species were developed through the NEPA process and will be refined or further developed to meet BLM special status species management policies throughout preparation of the POD based on the results of biological resource surveys. Compliance with the measures in this section is required as a condition of the BLM right-of-way grant. In the event that a conservation

Energy Gateway South Transmission Project B1-69 Plan of Development Appendix B1 – Biological Resources Conservation Plan November 2016

measure for a BLM-sensitive species cannot be followed, or in the event the effects on the species are expected to exceed those described in this section, coordination will be required with the BLM and the BLM Authorized Officer or his/her designated representative to obtain a BLM right-of-way grant variance. The variance process must be complete before the activity that may affect the species may occur.

Conservation measures for USFS-sensitive species were developed through the NEPA process and USFS BE process. These measures will be further refined throughout preparation of the POD to meet USFS special status species management policies, including USFS Manual 2670, based on the results of biological resource surveys conducted. Compliance with the measures in this section is required as a condition of the USFS special-use authorization. In the event that a conservation measure for a USFS- sensitive species cannot be followed, or in the event the effects on the species are expected to exceed those described in this section, coordination will be required with the USFS and the USFS Authorized Officer or his/her designated representative to obtain a special-use authorization variance. Variances will not be granted that will exceed residual effects levels analyzed in the BE. The variance process must be complete before the activity that may affect the species may occur.

[Additional species encountered during surveys will be added when the surveys and coordination and consultation with the appropriate agencies have been completed.]

B1.4.3.1 Greater Sage-grouse Conservation Measures The conservation measures applicable to greater sage-grouse habitats crossed by the agency-preferred route developed through the EIS process and the BLM’s 2015 Greater Sage-grouse Approved Land Use Plan Amendments (LUPA) are provided and described in the text below. However, as described above, the avoidance of impacts required under the mitigation hierarchy are not fully addressed by these conservation measures. Additional compensatory mitigation that provides a net conservation gain will be required to facilitate development of the Project consistent with applicable agency plans and policies pertaining to sage-grouse.

The Applicant has initiated preparation of a Sage-grouse Compensatory Mitigation Plan, including preparation of a Habitat Equivalency Analysis, to address the compensatory mitigation required by the BLM for the Project’s impacts on sage-grouse. The Compensatory Mitigation Plan must be completed to the satisfaction of the BLM prior to issuance of a Notice to Proceed for construction of the transmission line.

Refer to Attachment G – Seasonal and Spatial Restrictions for Biological Resources for greater sage- grouse seasonal restrictions.

Design, Engineering, and Preparation of the Plan of Development Conservation Measures 9 and 10 are derived from the relevant BLM state office Greater Sage-grouse Approved LUPAs. These measures are included because final siting decisions for all of the features associated with the transmission line had not been determined at the time of the draft POD and these measures would guide design and review of the final design. The Greater Sage-grouse Approved LUPAs provide exceptions for the Project where it is colocated with the TransWest Express Transmission Line Project; however, impacts to greater sage-grouse will be avoided as much as possible.

 Greater Sage-grouse Conservation Measure 9. Right-of-Way, Permit, and Lease Guidelines  Colorado: Manage areas in Primary Habitat Management Areas (PHMAs) as avoidance areas for BLM right-of-way permits. Manage areas within General Habitat Management Area

Energy Gateway South Transmission Project B1-70 Plan of Development Appendix B1 – Biological Resources Conservation Plan November 2016

(GHMA) as avoidance areas for major (transmission lines greater than 100-kilovolt (kV) and pipelines greater than 24 inches) and minor BLM right-of-way permits.  Colorado: No new aboveground structures within 1 mile of an active lek.  Rights-of-way may be issued after documenting that the rights-of-way would not adversely affect greater sage-grouse populations based on the following criteria: . Location of proposed activities in relation to critical greater sage-grouse habitat areas, as identified by factors including, average male lek attendance and/or important seasonal habitat; . An evaluation of the potential threats from proposed activities that may affect the local population as compared to benefits that could be accomplished through compensatory or offsite mitigation; and . An evaluation of the proposed activities in relation to the site-specific terrain and habitat features.  The Northwest Colorado Greater Sage-grouse Approved LUPA provides exceptions for the Project where it is co-located with the TransWest Express Transmission Line Project; however, impacts on greater sage-grouse will be avoided as much as possible.  Utah: PHMA would be avoidance areas for new linear and site type rights-of way, permits, and leases except for within right-of way corridors designated for aboveground use. Placement of new rights-of way, permits, and leases in PHMA should be avoided if at all possible. Where avoidance is not possible in PHMA, placement of a new right-of way/permit/lease could be allowed if it applies the management for discretionary activities in PHMA identified in MA-GRSG-3 (e.g., mitigation, disturbance cap, buffers, tall structure restrictions, seasonal restrictions, and applicable Required Design Features). . In PHMA, lands rights-of way, permits, and leases that cannot be avoided should be located in areas that minimize the effect on the greater sage-grouse population (e.g., nonhabitat areas, least suitable habitat, collocated with existing disturbances). . In PHMA, new proposals for power lines, access roads, pump storage, and other hydroelectric facilities licensed by the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission would be subject to all greater sage-grouse right-of-way avoidance allocations and pertinent management for discretionary activities in MA-GRSG-3. Outside PHMA, portions of opportunity areas within 4 miles of a lek that is located in PHMA would be avoidance areas for new rights-of-way, permits, and leases, applying stipulations for noise and tall structures. . The Utah Greater Sage-grouse Approved LUPA provides exceptions for the Project where it is colocated with the TransWest Express Transmission Line Project; however, impacts to greater sage-grouse will be avoided as much as possible.  Wyoming: PHMAs would be managed as right-of-way avoidance areas for new right-of-way permits. Within PHMAs where new rights-of-way are necessary, new rights-of-way would be located within designated RMP corridors or adjacent to existing rights-of-way where technically feasible. Subject to valid existing rights, including nonfederal land inholdings, required new rights-of-way would be located adjacent to existing rights-of-way or where it best minimizes sage-grouse impacts. . Portions of PHMAs would be managed as right-of-way exclusion areas in accordance with existing RMP decisions for resource values other than greater sage-grouse. . Within GHMAs where new rights-of-way are necessary, new rights-of-way would be co- located within existing rights-of-way where technically feasible. Appropriate sage-grouse seasonal timing constraints would be applied.

Energy Gateway South Transmission Project B1-71 Plan of Development Appendix B1 – Biological Resources Conservation Plan November 2016

. Portions of GHMAs would be managed as right-of-way avoidance areas in in accordance with existing RMP decisions for resource values other than greater sage-grouse. . Within PHMAs, specific to management for greater sage-grouse, all RMPs are amended as follows: . Maintenance replacement of existing structures would be allowed subject to valid and existing rights. Upgrades would be considered, subject to mandatory Required Design Features. . Existing guy wires should be removed or appropriately marked with bird flight diverters to make them more visible to sage-grouse in flight. Power lines (distribution and transmission) will be designed to minimize wildlife-related impacts and constructed to the latest Avian Power Line Interaction Committee (APLIC) standards. . Within PHMA where existing authorizations or rights-of-way have had some level of development (e.g., road, fence, and well) and are expired and are no longer in use, the site would be reclaimed by removing these features and restoring the habitat. Power lines (distribution and transmission) will be designed to minimize wildlife-related impacts and constructed to the latest APLIC standards.  The BLM RMP and USFS Land and Resource Management Plan amendments for Wyoming provides exceptions for the Project where it is co-located with the TransWest Express Transmission Line Project, however, impacts to greater sage-grouse will be avoided as much as possible.

 Greater Sage-grouse Conservation Measure 10. Transmission Line Guidelines  Colorado: PHMA and GHMA are designated as avoidance areas for high-voltage transmission line rights-of-way, except for the transmission projects specifically identified below. All authorizations in these areas, other than the excepted projects, must comply with the conservation measures outlined in the Approved LUPA, including the Required Design Features and avoidance criteria presented in this document. The BLM is currently processing applications for the TransWest Express and Energy Gateway South Transmission Line projects, and the NEPA review for this project is well underway. The BLM is analyzing greater sage-grouse mitigation measures through these projects’ NEPA review processes.  Utah: PHMA are designated as avoidance areas for high voltage transmission line rights-of- way, except for the transmission projects specifically identified below. All authorizations in these areas, other than the excepted projects, must comply with the conservation measures outlined in this plan, including the required design features and avoidance criteria presented in MA-GRSG-03. The BLM is currently processing an application for TransWest Express (including those portions of Energy Gateway South that are collocated) and the NEPA review for this project is well underway. The BLM is analyzing greater sage-grouse mitigation measures through the project’s NEPA review process. . In PHMA, high voltage transmission lines (100kV or greater) would be avoided if possible. If avoidance is not possible, they would be placed in designated corridors where technically feasible. Where not technically feasible, lines should be located adjacent to existing infrastructure, unless using a different alignment better minimizes impacts on greater sage-grouse. New rights-of-way constructed adjacent to existing infrastructure will be constructed as close as technically feasible to existing infrastructure to limit disturbance to the smallest footprint. . In PHMA outside of designated corridors, new transmission lines must be buried where technically feasible. Where burying transmission lines is not technically feasible: o New transmission lines must be located adjacent to existing infrastructure, unless using a different alignment better minimizes impacts on greater sage-grouse; and

Energy Gateway South Transmission Project B1-72 Plan of Development Appendix B1 – Biological Resources Conservation Plan November 2016

o Would be subject to greater sage-grouse right-of-way avoidance criteria described above. . In PHMA, if an existing transmission line is being upgraded to a higher voltage transmission line outside an existing corridor: o The existing transmission line must be removed within a reasonable amount of time after the new line is installed and energized; and o The new line must be constructed in the same alignment as the existing line unless an alternative route would benefit greater sage-grouse or greater sage-grouse habitat. . In PHMA, where existing guy wires are determined to have a negative impact on greater sage-grouse or its habitat, they should be removed or appropriately marked with bird flight diverters to make them more visible to greater sage-grouse in flight.  Wyoming: . New transmission lines greater than 115kV in PHMA (core only) would be allowed only (1) within the 2-mile wide transmission line route through PHMA (core only) population areas in south-central and southwestern Wyoming; (2) when located within 0.5 mile or less of an existing 115kV or greater transmission line; or (3) in designated RMP corridors authorized for aboveground transmission lines. Transmission lines routed using one or more of the three criteria listed above will not be counted against the Density and Disturbance Calculation Tool percent disturbance cap. . New transmission lines greater than 115kV proposed outside of these areas would be considered where it can be demonstrated that declines in sage-grouse populations could be avoided through project design and/or mitigation. These projects will be subject to the density and disturbance restrictions for PHMA. . Construction of new transmission lines greater than 115kV will adhere to the restrictions associated with conducting activities within PHMAs. . Review of transmission lines greater than 115kV proposals would incorporate the Framework for Sage-grouse Impacts Analysis for Interstate Transmission Lines and other appropriate documents consistent with the three routing criteria described above. . New transmission lines greater than 115kV within PHMAs that may require future utility lines, including distribution and transmission lines or pipelines, would include the proposed utility lines in their Density and Disturbance Calculation Tool as part of the proposed disturbance. Lines permitted but not located in the above mentioned routes or a designated corridor will be counted toward the 5 percent disturbance calculation (line disturbance is equal to the anticipated construction footprint or construction right-of-way width multiplied by length and includes all access roads, staging areas, and other surface disturbance associated with construction outside of the construction right-of-way). . New electric distribution lines less than 115kV would be buried where feasible and economically feasible. If not economically feasible, distribution lines may be authorized when effectively designed/mitigated to protect greater sage-grouse and the Authorized Officer determines that overhead installation is the action alternative with the fewest adverse impacts while still meeting the project need. Agricultural and residential lines will be considered to be adequately mitigated for greater sage-grouse if constructed at least 0.6 mile from the lek perimeter with appropriate timing constraints and constructed to the latest APLIC standards. These right-of-way authorizations will be subject to approval by the State Director. . PHMAs are designated as avoidance areas for high-voltage transmission line and pipeline rights-of-way, except for the transmission projects specifically identified below. All authorizations in these areas, other than the excepted projects, must comply with the

Energy Gateway South Transmission Project B1-73 Plan of Development Appendix B1 – Biological Resources Conservation Plan November 2016

conservation measures outlined in this proposed plan. The BLM is currently processing an application for Gateway South, Gateway West, and TransWest Express and the NEPA review for these projects is well underway. The BLM is analyzing greater sage-grouse mitigation measures through the project’s NEPA review process.

Construction, Operation, and Maintenance Conservation Measures 1 through 8 were developed through the Section 7 consultation process and are included in the BA. These measures are included because final siting decisions for all of the features associated with the transmission line had not been determined at the time of the draft POD and these measures would guide design and review of the final design.

 Greater Sage-grouse Conservation Measure 1. For any activities associated with the geotechnical investigation, the following restrictions will apply:  Seasonal and spatial restrictions identified in the POD and ongoing land-use plan amendments will be adhered to.  All work in designated sage-grouse habitat will be monitored by a biological monitor to ensure compliance with all applicable conservation measures.  Existing access roads in designated sage-grouse habitat may be used but not improved.

 Greater Sage-grouse Conservation Measure 2. Special status species will be considered in accordance with management policies set forth by management agencies. Surveys for special status wildlife potentially affected by the Project will be conducted in suitable habitat along the selected route using protocols approved by the BLM, the USFS, or other cooperating agencies. Construction techniques that avoid and minimize impacts on special status wildlife populations and habitat would be implemented, which may include altering the placement of roads or transmission line structures, use of existing roads, and minimization of vegetation clearing. Additional techniques to minimize impacts on sage-grouse in select locations may include structure design modification and the use of perch deterrents to reduce the effects of predation, and flight diverters and marking devices to reduce the risk of collision. The locations where these types of measures would be implemented would be determined by the BLM in coordination with the cooperating agencies. Monitoring of identified special status wildlife populations and habitat also may be required.

 Greater Sage-grouse Conservation Measure 3. All construction vehicle movement will be restricted to designated access roads based on avoidance of known noxious weed locations.

 Greater Sage-grouse Conservation Measure 4. To minimize vehicle collisions with special status wildlife, a speed limit of 15 miles per hour will be employed on overland access routes.

 Greater Sage-grouse Conservation Measure 5. All new or improved access not required for maintenance will be closed or rehabilitated following Project construction in accordance with prior agency approval and using the most effective and least environmentally damaging methods.

 Greater Sage-grouse Conservation Measure 6. Construction and maintenance activities will be restricted in designated areas and during critical periods (e.g., wintering habitats and specific breeding or nesting seasons). The timing of restrictions will be based on measures developed for the EIS and ongoing Land Use Plan Amendments.

 Greater Sage-grouse Conservation Measure 7. Drive-and-crush (vehicular travel to access a site without significantly modifying the landscape) and/or clear-and-cut travel (removal of vegetation to provide suitable access for equipment) will occur in areas where no grading will be needed to access work areas (i.e., areas with low-growing sagebrush and other low-growing vegetation). This will reduce the amount of ground-disturbing activities (e.g., surface soil

Energy Gateway South Transmission Project B1-74 Plan of Development Appendix B1 – Biological Resources Conservation Plan November 2016

removal, vegetation cropping/cutting), landscape modification, risk of introduction of invasive weeds, and special status wildlife habitat fragmentation. Modification of sagebrush vegetation communities, which provide necessary cover and forage for habitat suitability, resulting from vegetation clearing will be limited in habitats occupied by sagebrush obligate special status wildlife species like greater sage-grouse.

 Greater Sage-grouse Conservation Measure 8. To minimize disturbance to greater sage-grouse habitats, the transmission line right-of-way would be sited to avoid locally important habitats identified in consultation with the Proponent, the BLM, the FWS, and state wildlife agencies. Where seasonally important habitats (i.e., within 4 miles of leks, nesting, wintering) cannot be avoided, then transmission line right-of-way would be further sited as follows:  In areas to maximize colocation with other aboveground utilities  In existing designated corridors  In nonhabitat (i.e., within 4 miles of leks but outside of preliminary priority habitat, occupied habitat, woodland vegetation communities)  In areas where placement of structures and access roads maximizes the use of topographic features to visually screen impacts from seasonally important habitats  In areas that minimize fragmentation (i.e., use existing roads, no new permanent roads, drive- and-crush). Conservation Measures 11 through 13 are derived from the relevant BLM Greater Sage-grouse Approved LUPA. These measures are included because final siting decisions for all of the features associated with the transmission line had not been determined at the time of the draft POD and these measures would guide design and review of the final design.

 Greater Sage-grouse Conservation Measure 11. General Restrictions  Wyoming: Surface occupancy and surface-disturbing activities would be prohibited within 0.6 mile of occupied leks inside PHMAs and 0.25 mile of occupied leks outside of PHMAs. The Wyoming Greater Sage-grouse Approved LUPA provides exceptions for the Project where it is co-located with the TransWest Express Transmission Line Project; however, impacts to greater sage-grouse will be avoided as possible.  Colorado and Utah: Buffers would be required for: . Linear features (roads), infrastructure related to energy development, and surface disturbance (continuing human activities that alter or remove the natural vegetation) would be required within 3.1 miles of leks . Low structures (e.g., fences and rangeland structures) within 1.2 miles of leks  The Northwest Greater Sage-grouse Approved LUPA and Utah Greater Sage-grouse Approved LUPA provide exceptions for the Project where it is colocated with the TransWest Express Transmission Line Project, however, impacts to greater sage-grouse will be avoided as possible.

 Greater Sage-grouse Conservation Measure 12. Tall Structure Restrictions  Colorado and Utah: Construction buffers of 2 miles from leks for tall structures (e.g., communication or transmission towers and transmission lines) would be required.  Wyoming: No restrictions specific to tall structures are identified in the Wyoming Greater Sage-grouse Approved LUPA.

 Greater Sage-grouse Conservation Measure 13. Required Design Features  Colorado and Utah:

Energy Gateway South Transmission Project B1-75 Plan of Development Appendix B1 – Biological Resources Conservation Plan November 2016

. Where technically and financially feasible, bury distribution power lines and communication lines within existing disturbance. . Design roads to an appropriate standard no higher than necessary to accommodate their intended purpose. . Place infrastructure in already disturbed locations where the habitat has not been fully restored. . Cluster disturbances, operations, and facilities. . Microsite linear facilities to reduce impacts to greater sage-grouse habitats. . Locate staging areas outside greater sage-grouse habitat to the extent possible. . Coordinate road construction and use among right-of-way holders. . Restrict vehicle traffic to only authorized users on newly constructed routes using signage, gates, etc. . Construct road crossings at right angles to ephemeral drainages and stream crossings. . Consider placing pipelines under or immediately adjacent to a road or adjacent to other pipelines first, before considering co-locating with other rights-of-way. . Control the spread and effects of non-native plant species. . New right-of-way structures will be constructed with perch deterrents or other antiperching devices, where needed.  Wyoming: . Evaluate and take advantage of opportunities to remove or modify existing power lines within priority sage-grouse habitat areas. When possible, require perch deterrents on existing or new overhead facilities. Encourage installation of perch deterrents on existing facilities. . Where existing leases or rights-of-way have had some level of development (road, fence, well, etc.) and are no longer in use, reclaim the site by removing these features and restoring the habitat. . Locate man camps outside priority sage-grouse habitats. . Coordinate Required Design Features/Best Management Practices and vegetative objectives with the Natural Resources Conservation Service for consistent application across jurisdictions where the BLM, USFS, and NRCS have the greatest opportunities to benefit greater sage-grouse, particularly as it applies to the Natural Resources Conservation Service’s National Sage-Grouse Initiative (http://www.nrcs.usda.gov/wps/portal/nrcs/detailfull/national/programs/farmbill/initiative s/andcid=steldevb1027671). . Evaluate the role of existing seedings that are currently composed of primarily introduced perennial grasses in and adjacent to priority sage-grouse habitats to determine if they should be restored to sagebrush or habitat of higher quality for sage-grouse. If these seedings are part of an Allotment Management Plan/Conservation Plan, or if they provide value in conserving or enhancing the rest of the priority habitats, then no restoration would be necessary. Assess the compatibility of these seedings for sage-grouse habitat or as a component of a grazing system during land health assessment. . Where the federal government owns the surface, and the mineral estate is in nonfederal ownership, apply appropriate Best Management Practices to surface development.

B1.4.3.2 Graham’s and White River Beardtongue The conservation measures for Graham’s and White River beardtongue are identical and, therefore, are addressed jointly in this section. In addition to the measures listed below, the Project will adhere to applicable measures identified in the Conservation Agreement’s Mitigation Plan and Weed Management Plan.

Energy Gateway South Transmission Project B1-76 Plan of Development Appendix B1 – Biological Resources Conservation Plan November 2016

Conservation Measures Design, Engineering, and Preparation of the Plan of Development

 Design Feature 3. Special status species, threatened and endangered species, or other species of particular concern will be considered in accordance with management policies set forth by appropriate land-management or wildlife-management agencies. This will entail conducting surveys for plant and wildlife species of concern along the Project as agreed on by the agencies. Survey protocols must be accepted or recommended by the affected federal land-management agency, the FWS, and state wildlife agencies, as appropriate. In cases for which such species are identified, appropriate action will be taken to avoid adverse impacts on the species and its habitat, which may include altering the placement of roads or towers, where practicable, as approved by the landowner and CIC, as well as monitoring activities.

 Design Feature 5. To prevent the spread of noxious weeds, a Noxious Weed Management Plan will be developed and incorporated into the POD, which will be approved by the affected federal land-management agencies prior to the issuance of a right-of-way grant (BLM), special-use authorization (USFS), or encroachment permit and grant of easement (BIA). This plan will be based on the principles and procedures outlined in the BLM Integrated Weed Management Manual 9015 and Forest Service Noxious Weed Management Manual 2080. On private land, the plan will be approved by a county weed management officer.

 Design Feature 9. Based on preconstruction surveys and results of Section 7 consultation, state and federally designated sensitive plants, habitat, wetlands, riparian areas, springs, wells, water courses, or rare/slow regenerating vegetation communities will be flagged and structures will be placed to allow spanning of these features, where feasible, within the limits of standard structure design.

 Selective Mitigation Measure 2. No blading of new access roads would occur in proximity to certain sensitive resources during Project construction or maintenance. Existing crossings and/or overland access routes would be used for construction and maintenance in these areas. Methods such as “matting” could be used to stabilize access to work areas in these sensitive areas. To minimize ground disturbance, overland routes must be flagged with easily seen markers, and the route must be approved in advance.

 Selective Mitigation Measure 7. Within the limits of standard tower design and in conformance with engineering and the Company’s requirements, structures will be located to allow conductors to clearly span identified sensitive features. Structures will be placed so as to avoid sensitive features, including, wetlands, riparian areas, water courses, hazardous substance remediation, and cultural sites, to the extent possible. Avoidance measures may include selective tower placement, spanning sensitive features, or realigning access routes.

 Graham’s and White River Beardtongue Conservation Measure 1. Conservation areas totaling 44,373.4 acres will be established by the Conservation Agreement. These conservation areas include 5,886.9 acres on private and state lands that may not be protected if the species were listed under the ESA. Development and surface disturbance will be minimized and consolidated to reduce habitat fragmentation, in conservation areas by the following actions:  Avoiding conservation areas.  Avoiding plants by 300 feet. Surface-disturbing activities may occur within 300 feet of plants if it benefits or reduces impacts to the species or habitat. On nonfederal lands, surface disturbance within 300 feet of either species will need to be approved by the conservation team. On federal lands, if surf ace disturbance is within 300 fee t of either species, the BLM will first conference with the FWS.

Energy Gateway South Transmission Project B1-77 Plan of Development Appendix B1 – Biological Resources Conservation Plan November 2016

 Calculating new surface disturbance from those activities that include a permanent structure, activities that require a permit, or new roads or improvements to existing roads.

Construction, Operation, and Maintenance

 Design Feature 1. In construction areas where recontouring is not required, vegetation will be left in place wherever possible, and original contour will be maintained to avoid excessive root damage and allow for resprouting in accordance with the reclamation plan. Vegetation not consistent with minimum clearance distances between trees and transmission lines must be removed to ensure line safety and reliability (required by North American Electric Reliability Council Transmission Vegetation Management Program [2006, 2008, 2009]).

 Design Feature 2. In construction areas where there is ground disturbance or where recontouring is required, surface reclamation will occur as required by the landowner or land-management agency. The method of reclamation normally will consist of, but is not limited to, returning disturbed areas to their natural contour, reseeding, installing cross drains for erosion control, placing water bars in the road, and filling ditches. All areas on lands administered by federal agencies disturbed as a part of the construction and/or maintenance of the Project will be seeded with a seed mixture appropriate for those areas. The federal land-management agency will approve a seed mixture that fits each range type. Seeding methods typically will include drill seeding, where practicable; however, the federal land- management agency may recommend broadcast seeding as an alternative method in some cases. A Reclamation, Revegetation, and Monitoring Plan Framework identifying reclamation stipulations will be developed and incorporated into the POD, which will be approved by the affected federal land-management agency prior to the issuance of a BLM right-of-way grant, USFS special-use authorization, BIA encroachment permit and grant of easement, etc.

 Design Feature 26. All vehicle movement outside the right-of-way will be restricted to predesignated access, contractor-acquired access, public roads, or overland travel approved in advance by the applicable land-management agency, unless authorized by the CIC (during construction).

 Design Feature 27. The spatial limits of construction activities, including vehicle movement, will be predetermined with activity restricted to and confined within those limits. No paint or permanent discoloring agents indicating survey or construction limits will be applied to rocks, vegetation, structures, fences, etc.

 Design Feature 28. Prior to construction, the CIC will instruct all personnel on the protection of cultural, paleontological, ecological, and other natural resources, such as (a) federal and state laws regarding antiquities, paleontological resources, and plants and wildlife, including collection and removal; (b) the importance of these resources; (c) the purpose and necessity of protecting them; and (d) reporting and procedures for stop work.

 Design Feature 30. Hazardous material will not be discharged onto the ground or into streams or drainage areas. Enclosed containment will be provided for all waste. All construction waste will be removed to a disposal facility authorized to accept such materials within 1 week of Project completion. A Spill Pollution Prevention, Containment, and Countermeasures Plan Framework will be developed as part of the POD. Refueling and storing potentially hazardous materials will not occur within a 100-foot radius of a water body, a 200-foot radius of all identified private water wells, and a 400-foot radius of all identified municipal or community water wells. Spill prevention and containment measures will be incorporated as needed.

Energy Gateway South Transmission Project B1-78 Plan of Development Appendix B1 – Biological Resources Conservation Plan November 2016

. Graham’s and White River Beardtongue Conservation Measure 2. Per the Conservation Agreement Weed Management Plan, no chemical weed treatment will occur within 300 feet of known locations of Graham’s beardtongue or White River beardtongue unless chemical-specific mitigation measures have been consulted on and approved by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. Within 300 feet of plants, mechanical removal by hand or using hand tools can be used for noxious weed infestations. Within penstemon habitat and conservation areas, the BLM and counties will use chemicals approved for use in existing BLM documents for compliance with the National Environmental Policy Act. For example, upland weeds within the VFO, including knapweeds, broadleaved pepperweed, whitetop, and black henbane, are typically treated with 2,4-D, clopyralid, and chlorsulfuron. Mechanical removal by hand or using hand tools can also be used. For all herbicide treatments of infestations within conservation areas, the following mitigation measures will be followed:  Spraying will not be done when wind speeds exceed 6 miles per hour.  A reduced application rate will be used.  Pump pressure will be adjusted, per label instructions.  Droplet size will be increased to the largest size possible while still effectively covering the target vegetation. This could be accomplished using larger nozzles or reduced pressure. For herbicide treatment of infestations within 1,200 feet of known Graham’s beardtongue or White River beardtongue points, these additional mitigation measures will be followed:  Manual spot treatments using herbicide injection, wick application, cut-stump, or backpack sprayers shall be utilized.  All those involved in the spray application shall conduct (or shall accompany a qualified botanist/ecologist on) a preliminary, meandering survey of the special status plant populations. Care shall be taken to avoid spraying special status plants.  When practical, spray treatments would occur when most beneficial to special status plant species.  Pesticide containers shall be stored away from special status plants in spill-proof containers.  Drift-reducing agents shall be used when practical. The Penstemon Conservation Team does not typically treat tamarisk because the tamarisk is active within the Green River and its major drainages. Tamarisk and Russian olive are found in ditches, roadsides, and drainages, and they are not likely to impact upland areas where Graham’s and White River beardtongue occurs. If a particular infestation of either of these species within conservation areas is problematic, seedlings or resprouts up to 3.5 feet in height can be treated using aquatic-safe herbicides as foliar spray. (Aquatic-safe herbicides are required within 10 feet of water.) Trees larger than this require cut-stump or frill-cut herbicide application at full strength.

B1.4.3.3 Mountain Plover Conservation Measures The below measures will be applied on a site-specific basis in coordination with the applicable agencies subsequent to review of survey results.

Design, Engineering, and Preparation of the Plan of Development

 Design Feature 3. Special status species, threatened and endangered species, or other species of particular concern will be considered in accordance with management policies set forth by

Energy Gateway South Transmission Project B1-79 Plan of Development Appendix B1 – Biological Resources Conservation Plan November 2016

appropriate land-management or wildlife-management agencies. This will entail conducting surveys for plant and wildlife species of concern along the Project as agreed on by the agencies. Survey protocols must be accepted or recommended by the affected federal land-management agency, the FWS, and state wildlife agencies, as appropriate. In cases for which such species are identified, appropriate action will be taken to avoid adverse impacts on the species and its habitat, which may include altering the placement of roads or towers, where practicable, as approved by the landowner and CIC, as well as monitoring activities.

 Design Feature 7. If vegetation clearing and other geotechnical investigations, construction, and maintenance activities could not be avoided during the migratory bird nesting season (between February 1 and August 31), migratory bird and nest surveys will be required within 7 days of any ground-disturbing activities. A spatial nest buffer will be placed around each active nest detected during the surveys until such time as the nest is determined through monitoring to be no longer occupied. Appropriate spatial nest buffers and nest monitoring requirements are provided in Attachment D – Migratory Bird Nest Management, Monitoring, and Reporting Plan Framework.

Construction, Operation, and Maintenance Mountain Plover Conservation Measure 1 is derived from the BLM Little Snake Field Office RMP and Mountain Plover Conservation Measures 2 – 13 are derived from the BLM Rawlins Field Office RMP.

 Mountain Plover Conservation Measure 1. No surface occupancy stipulations should be followed within 0.25 mile around all mountain plover nest sites. The boundaries of the stipulated area may be modified if the Authorized Officer determines that surface occupancy will not harm the integrity of the nest or nest location. The controlled surface use and timing stipulations indicated in Attachment G – Seasonal and Spatial Restrictions for Biological Resources Restrictions should be implemented during breeding season.

 Mountain Plover Conservation Measure 2. Access roads will be realigned to avoid the identified mountain plover-occupied habitat.

 Mountain Plover Conservation Measure 3. Within 0.5 mile of the identified mountain plover- occupied habitat, speed limits will be posted at 25 miles per hour on resources roads and 35 miles per hour on local roads during the brood-rearing period (June 1 through July 10).

 Mountain Plover Conservation Measure 4. To protect the identified mountain plover- occupied habitat, power lines will be buried or poles will include a perch-inhibitor in their design. This will be required within 0.5 mile of the identified mountain plover-occupied habitat.

 Mountain Plover Conservation Measure 5. To protect the identified mountain plover- occupied habitat, fences, storage tanks, and other elevated structures will be constructed as low as possible and/or will incorporate perch inhibitors into their design.

 Mountain Plover Conservation Measure 6. Within 0.5 mile of identified mountain plover- occupied habitat, road-killed animals will be promptly removed.

 Mountain Plover Conservation Measure 7. To protect the identified mountain plover-occupied habitat, seed mixes and application rates for reclamation will be designed to produce stands of sparse, low-growing vegetation suitable for plover nesting.

 Mountain Plover Conservation Measure 8. To minimize destruction of nests and disturbance to breeding mountain plovers, no reclamation activities or other ground-disturbing activities will occur from April 10 through July 10, unless surveys consistent with the Plover Guidelines or other methods approved by the FWS find that no plovers are nesting in the area.

 Mountain Plover Conservation Measure 9. To protect the identified mountain plover-occupied habitat, and because mountain plover adults and broods may forage along roads during the night,

Energy Gateway South Transmission Project B1-80 Plan of Development Appendix B1 – Biological Resources Conservation Plan November 2016

traffic speed and traffic volume will be limited during nighttime hours from April 10 through July 10.

 Mountain Plover Conservation Measure 10. Within mountain plover-occupied habitat, work schedules and shift changes will be modified from June 1 through July 10 to avoid the periods of activity from a 0.5 hour before sunrise to 10:00 a.m. and from 5:00 p.m. to a 0.5 hour after sunset.

 Mountain Plover Conservation Measure 11. To protect the identified mountain plover- occupied habitat, traffic will be minimized from June 1 through July 10 by carpooling and organizing work activities to minimize trips on roads within 0.5 mile of the mountain plover- occupied habitat area.

 Mountain Plover Conservation Measure 12. To protect identified mountain plover-occupied habitat, alternative construction designs and techniques, such as moving the facility off the identified mountain plover-occupied habitat to a centralized facility, or other techniques that minimize ground disturbance and habitat degradation, will be required.

 Design Feature 6. Avoid vegetation clearing and other geotechnical investigation, construction, and maintenance activities when possible during the migratory bird nesting season, between February 1 and August 31; however, dates may vary depending on species, current environmental conditions, results of preconstruction surveys, and approval by agency biologists or agency- approved environmental inspectors in coordination with agency biologists.

 Design Feature 26. All vehicle movement outside the right-of-way will be restricted to predesignated access, contractor-acquired access, public roads, or overland travel approved in advance by the applicable land-management agency, unless authorized by the CIC (during construction).

 Design Feature 27. The spatial limits of construction activities, including vehicle movement, will be predetermined with activity restricted to and confined within those limits. No paint or permanent discoloring agents indicating survey or construction limits will be applied to rocks, vegetation, structures, fences, etc.

 Design Feature 28. Prior to construction, the CIC will instruct all personnel on the protection of cultural, paleontological, ecological, and other natural resources, such as (a) federal and state laws regarding antiquities, paleontological resources, and plants and wildlife, including collection and removal; (b) the importance of these resources; (c) the purpose and necessity of protecting them; and (d) reporting and procedures for stop work.

 Design Feature 39. To minimize vehicle collisions with wildlife or livestock, a speed limit of 15 miles per hour will be employed on overland access routes.

 Selective Mitigation Measure 12. To minimize disturbance to wildlife species during sensitive periods, geotechnical investigations, construction, operation, and maintenance activities will be restricted in designated areas unless exceptions are granted by the respective federal land- management agencies’ Authorized Officer or their designated representatives and other applicable regulatory agencies. A list of species-specific restrictions is presented in Attachment G – Seasonal and Spatial Restrictions for Biological Resources; note that restrictions for individual species vary by State and BLM Field Office.

Energy Gateway South Transmission Project B1-81 Plan of Development Appendix B1 – Biological Resources Conservation Plan November 2016

B1.4.3.4 Pygmy Rabbit Conservation Measures Refer to Attachment G - Seasonal and Spatial Restrictions for Biological Resources for additional stipulations that may be required by individual BLM field offices.

Design, Engineering, and Preparation of the Plan of Development

 Pygmy Rabbit Conservation Measure 1. Per the BLM Rawlins Field Office RMP and correspondence with BLM Salt Lake Field Office, identified pygmy rabbit habitat patches will be avoided by 100 meters, when possible. The BLM Salt Lake Field Office recommends that if avoidance is not possible, construction will be restricted within 100 meters of habitat during breeding season and winter. Per the BLM Rawlins Field Office RMP, in the event identified pygmy rabbit habitat cannot be avoided by 100 meters, a fence will be constructed in areas identified by the BLM wildlife biologist, between the pygmy rabbit habitat and the Project area, prior to any ground-disturbing activities, to reduce disturbance to pygmy rabbit habitat during Project construction. The fence shall remain in place through Project construction. In addition, a preconstruction presence/absence survey for pygmy rabbits will be conducted prior to any surface-disturbing activities within 0.25 mile of the edge of the proposed surface disturbance. The surveys must be completed by a BLM, or BLM-approved, wildlife biologist. The current survey protocol is available from the BLM Rawlins Field Office. Monitoring will be required by a BLM, or BLM- approved, wildlife biologist for two years postconstruction to identify any pygmy rabbit changes in habitat use and to determine if development impacted the local pygmy rabbit population. A report will be submitted to the BLM within 180 days after postconstruction monitoring has been completed.

 Design Feature 3. Special status species, threatened and endangered species, or other species of particular concern will be considered in accordance with management policies set forth by appropriate land-management or wildlife-management agencies. This will entail conducting surveys for plant and wildlife species of concern along the Project as agreed on by the agencies. Survey protocols must be accepted or recommended by the affected federal land-management agency, the FWS, and state wildlife agencies, as appropriate. In cases for which such species are identified, appropriate action will be taken to avoid adverse impacts on the species and its habitat, which may include altering the placement of roads or towers, where practicable, as approved by the landowner and CIC, as well as monitoring activities.

 Selective Mitigation Measure 2. No blading of new access roads would occur in proximity to certain sensitive resources during Project construction or maintenance. Existing crossings and/or overland access routes would be used for construction and maintenance in these areas. Methods such as “matting” could be used to stabilize access to work areas in these sensitive areas. To minimize ground disturbance, overland routes must be flagged with easily seen markers, and the route must be approved in advance.

 Selective Mitigation Measure 11. Clearing of the right-of-way would be minimized to avoid sensitive resources and reduce visual contrast. In select areas, the width of vegetation clearing in the right-of-way may be modified (within the limits of PacifiCorp Vegetation Management Standards and standard tower design), and/or current land uses would be allowed to continue unabated, provided the use meets applicable standards.

Energy Gateway South Transmission Project B1-82 Plan of Development Appendix B1 – Biological Resources Conservation Plan November 2016

Construction, Operation, and Maintenance

 Design Feature 39. To minimize vehicle collisions with wildlife or livestock, a speed limit of 15 miles per hour will be employed on overland access routes.

 Design Feature 26. All vehicle movement outside the right-of-way will be restricted to predesignated access, contractor-acquired access, public roads, or overland travel approved in advance by the applicable land-management agency, unless authorized by the CIC (during construction).

 Design Feature 27. The spatial limits of construction activities, including vehicle movement, will be predetermined with activity restricted to and confined within those limits. No paint or permanent discoloring agents indicating survey or construction limits will be applied to rocks, vegetation, structures, fences, etc.

 Design Feature 28. Prior to construction, the CIC will instruct all personnel on the protection of cultural, paleontological, ecological, and other natural resources, such as (a) federal and state laws regarding antiquities, paleontological resources, and plants and wildlife, including collection and removal; (b) the importance of these resources; (c) the purpose and necessity of protecting them; and (d) reporting and procedures for stop work.

 Design Feature 30. Hazardous material will not be discharged onto the ground or into streams or drainage areas. Enclosed containment will be provided for all waste. All construction waste will be removed to a disposal facility authorized to accept such materials within 1 week of Project completion. A Spill Pollution Prevention, Containment, and Countermeasures Plan Framework will be developed as part of the POD. Refueling and storing potentially hazardous materials will not occur within a 100-foot radius of a water body, a 200-foot radius of all identified private water wells, and a 400-foot radius of all identified municipal or community water wells. Spill prevention and containment measures will be incorporated as needed.

 Selective Mitigation Measure 5. To limit new or improved access into the Project area, as well as earthwork associated with the construction of tower pads in extremely steep terrain, all new or improved access and structure work areas not required for maintenance will be closed or rehabilitated using the most effective and least environmentally damaging methods appropriate to that area and developed through consultation with the landowner or land-management agency. Methods for road closure or management include installing and locking gates, obstructing the path, revegetating and mulching the surface of the roadbed to make it less apparent, restoring the road to its natural contour and vegetation, or constructing waterbars to ensure proper drainage. Tower pads would be contoured to blend with existing grade and revegetated to the extent practicable to reduce their visual dominance in steep terrain.

B1.4.3.5 White-tailed Prairie Dog Conservation Measures Refer to Attachment G - Seasonal and Spatial Restrictions for Biological Resources for additional stipulations that may be required by individual BLM field offices for white-tailed prairie dog colonies in black-footed ferret habitat. Design, Engineering, and Preparation of the Plan of Development

 Design Feature 3. Special status species, threatened and endangered species, or other species of particular concern will be considered in accordance with management policies set forth by appropriate land-management or wildlife-management agencies. This will entail conducting surveys for plant and wildlife species of concern along the Project as agreed on by the agencies.

Energy Gateway South Transmission Project B1-83 Plan of Development Appendix B1 – Biological Resources Conservation Plan November 2016

Survey protocols must be accepted or recommended by the affected federal land-management agency, the FWS, and state wildlife agencies, as appropriate. In cases for which such species are identified, appropriate action will be taken to avoid adverse impacts on the species and its habitat, which may include maintaining spatial buffers or altering the placement of roads or towers, where practicable, as approved by the landowner and CIC, as well as monitoring activities.

 Selective Mitigation Measure 7. Within the limits of standard tower design and in conformance with engineering and the Company’s requirements, structures will be located to allow conductors to clearly span identified sensitive features. Structures will be placed so as to avoid sensitive features, including wetlands, riparian areas, water courses, hazardous substance remediation, and cultural sites, to the extent possible. Avoidance measures may include selective tower placement, spanning sensitive features, or realigning access routes.

Construction, Operation, and Maintenance

 Design Feature 26. All vehicle movement outside the right-of-way will be restricted to predesignated access, contractor-acquired access, public roads, or overland travel approved in advance by the applicable land-management agency, unless authorized by the CIC (during construction).

 Design Feature 27. The spatial limits of construction activities, including vehicle movement, will be predetermined with activity restricted to and confined within those limits. No paint or permanent discoloring agents indicating survey or construction limits will be applied to rocks, vegetation, structures, fences, etc.

 Design Feature 28. Prior to construction, the CIC will instruct all personnel on the protection of cultural, paleontological, ecological, and other natural resources, such as (a) federal and state laws regarding antiquities, paleontological resources, and plants and wildlife, including collection and removal; (b) the importance of these resources; (c) the purpose and necessity of protecting them; and (d) reporting and procedures for stop work.

 Design Feature 30. Hazardous material will not be discharged onto the ground or into streams or drainage areas. Enclosed containment will be provided for all waste. All construction waste will be removed to a disposal facility authorized to accept such materials within 1 week of Project completion. A Spill Pollution Prevention, Containment, and Countermeasures Plan Framework will be developed as part of the POD. Refueling and storing potentially hazardous materials will not occur within a 100-foot radius of a water body, a 200-foot radius of all identified private water wells, and a 400-foot radius of all identified municipal or community water wells. Spill prevention and containment measures will be incorporated as needed

 Design Feature 39. To minimize vehicle collisions with wildlife or livestock, a speed limit of 15 miles per hour will be employed on overland access routes.

B1.4.3.6 Wyoming Pocket Gopher Conservation Measures Design, Engineering, and Preparation of the Plan of Development

 Wyoming Pocket Gopher Conservation Measure 1. Per the BLM Rawlins Field Office RMP, where active pocket gopher mounds are identified, the Project will be moved 75 meters from the identified pocket gopher mounds to reduce impacts, when possible. In cases when the Project proponent cannot avoid surface-disturbing activity in active pocket gopher mounds by 75 meters, a preconstruction classification survey (via live capture) must be

Energy Gateway South Transmission Project B1-84 Plan of Development Appendix B1 – Biological Resources Conservation Plan November 2016

completed within 75 meters of the proposed Project to identify the associated pocket gopher to the species level. The surveys must be completed by a BLM, or BLM- approved, wildlife biologist. The current survey protocol is available from the BLM Rawlins Field Office. If results conclude that the associated species is a Northern pocket gopher, the proposed surface disturbance may proceed without any mitigation. If results conclude that the associated species is a Wyoming pocket gopher, or the classification survey fails to conclusively identify the associated pocket gopher, the following protection measures will apply: (1) The Project will be moved 75 meters from the identified Wyoming pocket gopher habitat; or (2) If applicable, in areas identified by the BLM wildlife biologist, a barrier will be placed between active Wyoming pocket gopher mounds and the Project area prior to Project construction. The barriers will remain in place through Project construction. In addition, monitoring will be required by a BLM, or BLM- approved, wildlife biologist for two years postconstruction to identify any Wyoming pocket gopher changes in habitat use and to determine if development impacted the local Wyoming pocket gopher population. A report will be submitted to the BLM within 180-days after the postconstruction monitoring has been completed.

 Design Feature 3. Special status species, threatened and endangered species, or other species of particular concern will be considered in accordance with management policies set forth by appropriate land-management or wildlife-management agencies. This will entail conducting surveys for plant and wildlife species of concern along the Project as agreed on by the agencies. Survey protocols must be accepted or recommended by the affected federal land-management agency, the FWS, and state wildlife agencies, as appropriate. In cases for which such species are identified, appropriate action will be taken to avoid adverse impacts on the species and its habitat, which may include altering the placement of roads or towers, where practicable, as approved by the landowner and CIC, as well as monitoring activities.

B1.4.3.7 Boreal Toad Conservation Measures Design, Engineering, and Preparation of the Plan of Development

 Design Feature 3. Special status species, threatened and endangered species, or other species of particular concern will be considered in accordance with management policies set forth by appropriate land-management or wildlife-management agencies. This will entail conducting surveys for plant and wildlife species of concern along the Project as agreed on by the agencies. Survey protocols must be accepted or recommended by the affected federal land-management agency, the FWS, and state wildlife agencies, as appropriate. In cases for which such species are identified, appropriate action will be taken to avoid adverse impacts on the species and its habitat, which may include altering the placement of roads or towers, where practicable, as approved by the landowner and CIC, as well as monitoring activities.

 Design Feature 34. Project activities would adhere to interagency developed methods of avoidance, inspection, and sanitization as described in the Operational Guidelines for Aquatic Invasive Species Prevention and Equipment Cleaning (USFS 2009). If control of fugitive dust near sensitive water bodies were necessary, water would be obtained from treated municipal sources or drafted from sources known to contain no aquatic invasive species. Support vehicles, drill rigs, water trucks, and drafting equipment would be inspected and sanitized, as needed, following interagency-approved operational guidelines. This design feature would be used to prevent the spread of aquatic invasive species.

Energy Gateway South Transmission Project B1-85 Plan of Development Appendix B1 – Biological Resources Conservation Plan November 2016

 Selective Mitigation Measure 7. Within the limits of standard tower design and in conformance with engineering and the Company’s requirements, structures will be located to allow conductors to clearly span identified sensitive features. Structures will be placed so as to avoid sensitive features, including important migratory bird habitats, to the extent possible.

 Selective Mitigation Measure 11. Clearing of the right-of-way would be minimized to avoid sensitive resources and reduce visual contrast. In select areas, the width of vegetation clearing in the right-of-way may be modified (within the limits of PacifiCorp Vegetation Management Standards and standard tower design), and/or current land uses would be allowed to continue unabated, provided the use meets applicable standards. Construction, Operation, and Maintenance

 Boreal Toad Conservation Measure 1. Per the BLM West Desert District, buffers between boreal toad habitat and areas of development will be maintained. 300-meter buffers from identified breeding habitat and 100-meter buffers from riparian areas will be maintained.

 Design Feature 26. All vehicle movement outside the right-of-way will be restricted to predesignated access, contractor-acquired access, public roads, or overland travel approved in advance by the applicable land-management agency, unless authorized by the CIC (during construction).

 Design Feature 27. The spatial limits of construction activities, including vehicle movement, will be predetermined with activity restricted to and confined within those limits. No paint or permanent discoloring agents indicating survey or construction limits will be applied to rocks, vegetation, structures, fences, etc.

 Design Feature 28. Prior to construction, the CIC will instruct all personnel on the protection of cultural, paleontological, ecological, and other natural resources, such as (a) federal and state laws regarding antiquities, paleontological resources, and plants and wildlife, including collection and removal; (b) the importance of these resources; (c) the purpose and necessity of protecting them; and (d) reporting and procedures for stop work.

 Design Feature 30. Hazardous material will not be discharged onto the ground or into streams or drainage areas. Enclosed containment will be provided for all waste. All construction waste will be removed to a disposal facility authorized to accept such materials within 1 week of Project completion. A Spill Pollution Prevention, Containment, and Countermeasures Plan Framework will be developed as part of the POD. Refueling and storing potentially hazardous materials will not occur within a 100-foot radius of a water body, a 200-foot radius of all identified private water wells, and a 400-foot radius of all identified municipal or community water wells. Spill prevention and containment measures will be incorporated as needed

 Design Feature 33. Consistent with BLM Riparian Management Policy, surface-disturbing activities within 328 feet (100 meters) of a riparian areas (defined as areas of land directly influenced by permanent surface or subsurface water having visible vegetation or physical characteristics reflective of permanent water influence, including wetlands, stream banks, and shores of ponds or lakes) in Utah and Colorado will be required to meet exception criteria defined by the BLM, such as acceptable measures to protect riparian resources and habitats by avoiding or minimizing stormwater runoff, sedimentation, and disturbance of riparian vegetation, habitats, and wildlife species. In Wyoming, surface-disturbing activities within 500 feet of all perennial waters and/or wetland and riparian areas and 100 feet (30 meters) of all ephemeral channels also will be required to meet exception criteria in association with the BLM Rawlins Field Office RMP (BLM 2008a). Mitigation measures will be developed on a site-specific basis, in

Energy Gateway South Transmission Project B1-86 Plan of Development Appendix B1 – Biological Resources Conservation Plan November 2016

consultation with the affected federal land-management agency, and incorporated into the final POD. If any disturbance is anticipated within 20 feet of the edge of a riparian area or other wetland habitat, a silt fence or certified weed-free wattle will be installed along the travel route on the wetland side unless the wetland is up-gradient.

 Selective Mitigation Measure 5. To limit new or improved access into the Project area, as well as earthwork associated with the construction of tower pads in extremely steep terrain, all new or improved access and structure work areas not required for maintenance will be closed or rehabilitated using the most effective and least environmentally damaging methods appropriate to that area and developed through consultation with the landowner or land-management agency. Methods for road closure or management include installing and locking gates, obstructing the path, revegetating and mulching the surface of the roadbed to make it less apparent, restoring the road to its natural contour and vegetation, or constructing waterbars to ensure proper drainage. Tower pads would be contoured to blend with existing grade and revegetated to the extent practicable to reduce their visual dominance in steep terrain.

 Selective Mitigation Measure 12. To minimize disturbance to wildlife species during sensitive periods, geotechnical investigations, construction, operation, and maintenance activities will be restricted in designated areas unless exceptions are granted by the respective federal land- management agencies’ Authorized Officer or their designated representatives and other applicable regulatory agencies. [Additional species encountered during surveys will be added when the surveys and coordination and consultation with the appropriate agencies have been completed.]

B1.4.4 Raptors The design features of the Project for environmental protection are consistent with the minimization of impacts required under the mitigation hierarchy. Design features of the Project for environmental protection (identified in the EIS) being implemented to reduce impacts on raptors and their important habitats include:

 Design Feature 3. Special status species, threatened and endangered species, or other species of particular concern will be considered in accordance with management policies set forth by appropriate land-management or wildlife-management agencies. This will entail conducting surveys for plant and wildlife species of concern along the Project as agreed on by the agencies. Survey protocols must be accepted or recommended by the affected federal land-management agency, FWS, and state wildlife agencies, as appropriate. In cases for which such species are identified, appropriate action will be taken to avoid adverse impacts on the species and its habitat, which may include altering the placement of roads or towers, where practicable, as approved by the landowner and CIC, as well as monitoring activities.

 Design Feature 4. The Company will design and construct all new or rebuilt transmission facilities to its raptor-safe design standards, including Suggested Practices for Avian Protection on Power Lines; The State of the Art in 2006 (APLIC 2006); Reducing Avian Collisions with Power Lines: The State of the Art in 2012 (APLIC 2012); PacifiCorp’s Avian Protection Plan, updated June 2011 (PacifiCorp 2011); and PacifiCorp’s substation guidelines. Series compensation stations must incorporate animal protections in accordance with the Company’s standards.

 Design Feature 6. Avoid vegetation clearing and other geotechnical investigation, construction, and maintenance activities when possible during the migratory bird nesting season, between

Energy Gateway South Transmission Project B1-87 Plan of Development Appendix B1 – Biological Resources Conservation Plan November 2016

February 1 and August 31; however, dates may vary depending on species, current environmental conditions, results of preconstruction surveys, and approval by agency biologists or agency- approved environmental inspectors in coordination with agency biologists (refer to Attachment G – Seasonal and Spatial Restrictions for Biological Resources for species-specific seasonal restriction dates, some of which occur outside of the date range indicated above).

 Design Feature 7. If vegetation clearing and other geotechnical investigations, construction, and maintenance activities could not be avoided during the migratory bird nesting season (between December 1 and August 31, depending on the species), migratory bird and nest surveys will be required within 7 days of any ground-disturbing activities. A spatial nest buffer will be placed around each active nest detected during the surveys until such time as the nest is determined through monitoring to be no longer occupied. Appropriate spatial nest buffers (by species or guild) and nest monitoring requirements will be identified using the best available scientific information through coordination with the FWS and other appropriate agencies and will be provided in a nest management plan incorporated into the POD. Refer to Attachment G – Seasonal and Spatial Restrictions for Biological Resources for species-specific seasonal restriction dates, some of which occur outside of the date range indicated above.

 Design Feature 8. Agency guidelines for raptor protection during the breeding season will be followed (refer to Attachment B – Biological Resources Monitoring Plan and Attachment G – Seasonal and Spatial Restrictions for Biological Resources).

 Design Feature 39. To minimize vehicle collisions with wildlife or livestock, a speed limit of 15 miles per hour will be employed on overland access routes. Selective mitigation measures (identified in the EIS) being implemented Project-wide to reduce impacts on raptors and their important habitats include:

 Selective Mitigation Measure 4. Removal of trees in the right-of-way will be minimized to limit disturbance to timber resources, reduce visual contrast, and protect sensitive habitat to the extent practicable to satisfy conductor-clearance requirements (refer to Appendix B4 – Vegetation Management Plan). To protect raptor nests and roosts, trees that contain raptor nests (regardless of activity status) or are known to serve as eagle winter roosts would not be removed.

 Selective Mitigation Measure 5. To limit new or improved access into the Project area, as well as earthwork associated with the construction of tower pads in extremely steep terrain, all new or improved access and structure work areas not required for maintenance will be closed or rehabilitated using the most effective and least environmentally damaging methods appropriate to that area and developed through consultation with the landowner or land-management agency. Methods for road closure or management include installing and locking gates, obstructing the path, revegetating and mulching the surface of the roadbed to make it less apparent, restoring the road to its natural contour and vegetation, or constructing waterbars to ensure proper drainage. This selective mitigation measure will be applied in coordination with the BLM and other relevant agencies with a focus on areas where the Project would be located within seasonal and spatial restrictions around raptor nests and winter roosts and presence of the road may adversely affect raptor nesting or winter roosting activities (refer to Attachment G – Seasonal and Spatial Restrictions for Biological Resources).

 Selective Mitigation Measure 12. To minimize disturbance to wildlife species during sensitive periods, geotechnical investigations, construction, operation, and maintenance activities will be restricted in designated areas unless exceptions are granted by the respective federal land- management agencies’ Authorized Officer or their designated representatives and other applicable regulatory agencies. A list of species-specific raptor restrictions are presented in Attachment G - Seasonal Restrictions for Biological Resources (note restrictions for individual species vary by State and BLM Field Office).

Energy Gateway South Transmission Project B1-88 Plan of Development Appendix B1 – Biological Resources Conservation Plan November 2016

 Selective Mitigation Measure 15. Where feasible, access roads that traverse sensitive habitats will be gated or otherwise blocked in cooperation with the appropriate land-management agencies to limit public access. This selective mitigation measure will be applied in coordination with the BLM and other relevant agencies with a focus on areas where the Project would be located within seasonal and spatial restrictions around raptor nests and winter roosts and presence of the road may adversely affect raptor nesting or winter roosting activities (refer to Attachment G – Seasonal and Spatial Restrictions for Biological Resources).

If exceptions to the CSU stipulations identified in the BLM RMPs are granted, the BLM will require additional mitigation measures to reduce and monitor potential effects on raptors nesting in CSU areas. These measures will include:

 Raptor Mitigation Measure 1. Five years of annual postconstruction nest monitoring will be required in areas where BLM grants an exception to CSU stipulations identified in BLM RMPs (refer to Attachment B – Biological Resources Monitoring Plan).

 Raptor Mitigation Measure 2. Installation of artificial nesting structures may be required where exceptions to CSU stipulations identified in BLM RMPs are granted.

 Selective Mitigation Measure 14. Shield wires, guy wires, and overhead optical ground wire along portions of the Project with a high potential for avian collisions will be marked with flight diverters or other BLM or USFS approved devices in accordance with agency requirements and Reducing Avian Collisions with Power Lines: The State of the Art in 2012 (APLIC 2012). The specific segments where these devices will be used will be determined in consultation with the appropriate agencies, but will include consideration of marking areas where exceptions to CSU stipulations identified in BLM RMPs are granted.

 Selective Mitigation Measure 15. Where feasible, access roads that traverse sensitive habitats will be gated or otherwise blocked in cooperation with the appropriate land-management agencies to limit public access. This selective mitigation measure will be applied in coordination with the BLM and other relevant agencies with a focus on areas where the Project would be located within seasonal and spatial restrictions around raptor nests and winter roosts and presence of the road may adversely affect raptor nesting or winter roosting activities (refer to Attachment G – Seasonal and Spatial Restrictions for Biological Resources).

B1.4.5 Migratory Birds The design features of the Project for environmental protection are consistent with the avoidance and minimization of impacts required under the mitigation hierarchy. Design features of the Project for environmental protection (identified in the EIS) being implemented to reduce impacts on migratory birds and their important habitats include:

 Design Feature 4. The Company will design and construct all new or rebuilt transmission facilities to its raptor-safe design standards, including Suggested Practices for Avian Protection on Power Lines; The State of the Art in 2006 (APLIC 2006); Reducing Avian Collisions with Power Lines: The State of the Art in 2012 (APLIC 2012); PacifiCorp’s Avian Protection Plan, updated June 2011 (PacifiCorp 2011); and PacifiCorp’s substation guidelines. Series compensation stations must incorporate animal protections in accordance with the Company’s standards.

 Design Feature 6. Avoiding vegetation clearing and other construction and maintenance activities would limit effects on areas with nesting birds during the migratory bird nesting season, when possible, between December 1 and August 31; however, dates may vary depending on

Energy Gateway South Transmission Project B1-89 Plan of Development Appendix B1 – Biological Resources Conservation Plan November 2016

species, current environmental conditions, results of preconstruction surveys, and approval by agency biologists or agency-approved environmental inspectors in coordination with agency biologists.

 Design Feature 7. If vegetation clearing and other geotechnical investigations, construction, and maintenance activities could not be avoided during the migratory bird nesting season (between December 1 and August 31, depending on the species), migratory bird and nest surveys will be required within 7 days of any ground-disturbing activities. A spatial nest buffer will be placed around each active nest detected during the surveys until such time as the nest is determined through monitoring to be no longer occupied. Appropriate spatial nest buffers (by species or guild) and nest monitoring requirements were identified using the best available scientific information through coordination with the FWS and other appropriate agencies and are provided in Attachment D – Migratory Bird Nest Management, Monitoring, and Reporting Plan.

 Design Feature 8. Agency guidelines for raptor protection during the breeding season will be followed.

 Design Feature 26. All vehicle movement outside the right-of-way will be restricted to predesignated access, contractor-acquired access, public roads, or overland travel approved in advance by the applicable land-management agency, unless authorized by the CIC (during construction).

 Design Feature 27. The spatial limits of geotechnical investigations and construction activities, including vehicle movement, will be predetermined with activity restricted to and confined within those limits.

 Design Feature 28. Prior to construction, the CIC will instruct all personnel on the protection of cultural, paleontological, ecological, and other natural resources, such as (a) federal and state laws regarding antiquities, paleontological resources, and plants and wildlife, including collection and removal; (b) the importance of these resources; (c) the purpose and necessity of protecting them; and (d) reporting and procedures for stop work.

 Design Feature 30. Hazardous material will not be discharged onto the ground or into streams or drainage areas. Enclosed containment will be provided for all waste. All construction waste will be removed to a disposal facility authorized to accept such materials within 1 week of Project completion. A Spill Pollution Prevention, Containment, and Countermeasures Plan Framework will be developed as part of the POD.

 Design Feature 39. To minimize vehicle collisions with wildlife or livestock, a speed limit of 15 miles per hour will be employed on overland access routes. Selective mitigation measures (identified in the EIS) being implemented to reduce impacts on migratory birds and their important habitats include:

 Selective Mitigation Measure 7. Within the limits of standard tower design and in conformance with engineering and the Company’s requirements, structures will be located to allow conductors to clearly span identified sensitive features. Structures will be placed so as to avoid sensitive features, including important migratory bird habitats, to the extent possible.

 Selective Mitigation Measure 12. To minimize disturbance to identified plant and wildlife species during sensitive periods, geotechnical investigations, construction, operation, and maintenance activities will be restricted in designated areas unless exceptions are granted by the respective federal land-management agencies’ Authorized Officer or their designated representatives and other applicable regulatory agencies. A list of seasonal wildlife restrictions are presented in Attachment G – Seasonal and Spatial Restrictions for Biological Resources.

Energy Gateway South Transmission Project B1-90 Plan of Development Appendix B1 – Biological Resources Conservation Plan November 2016

 Selective Mitigation Measure 14. Shield wires, guy wires, and overhead optical ground wire along portions of the Project with a high potential for avian collisions will be marked with flight diverters or other BLM- or USFS- approved devices in accordance with agency requirements and Reducing Avian Collisions with Power Lines, The State of the Art in 2012 (APLIC 2012). Portions of the Project adjacent to or that cross through waterfowl and general migratory pathways or habitat for high priority species may be marked to reduce the risk of avian collisions. The specific segments where these devices will be used will be determined in consultation with the appropriate agencies in consideration of the EIS analysis prepared for the Project and other site-specific considerations. Migratory Bird Conservation Measure 1 is derived from the BLM Little Snake Field Office RMP and is being implemented to reduce impacts on migratory birds and their important habitats.

 Migratory Bird Conservation Measure 1. No surface occupancy will be allowed within waterfowl habitat management areas and rookeries. No surface occupancy areas may be altered, depending on the active status of the production areas or on the geographical relationship of topographical barriers and vegetation screening.

B1.4.6 Crucial Big Game Seasonal Habitats The design features of the Project for environmental protection are consistent with the avoidance and minimization of impacts required under the mitigation hierarchy. Design features of the Project for environmental protection (identified in the EIS) being implemented to reduce impacts on crucial big game seasonal habitats include:

 Design Feature 26. All vehicle movement outside the right-of-way will be restricted to predesignated access, contractor-acquired access, public roads, or overland travel approved in advance by the applicable land-management agency, unless authorized by the CIC (during construction).

 Design Feature 27. The spatial limits of geotechnical investigations and construction activities, including vehicle movement, will be predetermined with activity restricted to and confined within those limits.

 Design Feature 28. Prior to construction, the CIC will instruct all personnel on the protection of cultural, paleontological, ecological, and other natural resources, such as (a) federal and state laws regarding antiquities, paleontological resources, and plants and wildlife, including collection and removal; (b) the importance of these resources; (c) the purpose and necessity of protecting them; and (d) reporting and procedures for stop work.

 Design Feature 30. Hazardous material will not be discharged onto the ground or into streams or drainage areas. Enclosed containment will be provided for all waste. All construction waste will be removed to a disposal facility authorized to accept such materials within 1 week of Project completion. A Spill Pollution Prevention, Containment, and Countermeasures Plan Framework will be developed as part of the POD.

 Design Feature 39. To minimize vehicle collisions with wildlife or livestock, a speed limit of 15 miles per hour will be employed on overland access routes. Selective mitigation measures (identified in the EIS) being implemented to reduce impacts on crucial big game seasonal habitats include:

 Selective Mitigation Measure 12. To minimize disturbance to identified plant and wildlife species during sensitive periods, geotechnical investigations, construction, operation, and

Energy Gateway South Transmission Project B1-91 Plan of Development Appendix B1 – Biological Resources Conservation Plan November 2016

maintenance activities will be restricted in designated areas unless exceptions are granted by the respective federal land-management agencies’ Authorized Officer or their designated representatives and other applicable regulatory agencies. A list of seasonal wildlife restrictions are presented in Attachment G – Seasonal and Spatial Restrictions for Biological Resources.

 Selective Mitigation Measure 15. Where feasible, access roads that traverse sensitive habitats will be gated or otherwise blocked in cooperation with the appropriate land-management agencies to limit public access. This selective mitigation measure will be applied in coordination with the BLM and other relevant agencies with a focus on areas where the Project would be located within crucial big game winter habitat, calving/fawning areas, and migration corridors and presence of the new road may adversely affect big game animals. The specific areas and roads where this restriction would be implemented would be determined in coordination with the BLM and other relevant agencies upon completion of the engineering design of the Project during preparation of the POD.

B1.5 Biological Monitoring Requirements Construction monitoring for biological resources will be required by the BLM and other agencies during construction to ensure that resources present in the Project area are adequately protected and that measures contained in this and other plans are adhered to. The number of monitors required on each construction spread will depend on the resource present and the respective federal land-management agencies’ Authorized Officers’ or their designated representatives’ determination of a sufficient monitoring level. Activities that occur in biologically sensitive areas or during periods of heightened sensitivity are likely to require additional monitoring.

The responsibilities of the Biological Monitors that will be present in each spread during construction will include the following:

 Preconstruction surveys  Identification of resource presence/absence in biologically sensitive areas  Daily briefing of construction crews outlining restrictions associated with biologically sensitive areas  Daily contact with the environmental inspectors  Immediate notification of the CIC and authorized agency (BLM, USFS, UDWR, and/or the FWS) in the event construction operations violate terms and conditions of the POD and/or Project Record of Decision  Preparation of a summary of plan compliance given to BLM, USFS, UDWR, and FWS biologists on completion of the construction phase of the Project In addition to the construction monitoring described above, additional biological monitoring is required for some special status species addressed in this plan. For each species that additional monitoring is required, this requirement is identified under the Monitoring Requirements heading for that species in this plan. The purpose of this additional biological monitoring includes:

 Documenting resource conditions before, during, and after construction  Monitoring resource recovery after restoration  Evaluating the effectiveness of mitigation measures and implementing corrective actions or adaptive management where necessary The details of the biological monitoring requirements are included in Attachment B – Biological Resources Monitoring Plan Framework.

Energy Gateway South Transmission Project B1-92 Plan of Development Appendix B1 – Biological Resources Conservation Plan November 2016

B1.6 Literature Cited Atwood, N.D. 1975. A Revision of the Phacelia Crenulatae Group (Hydrophyllaceae) for North America. Great Basin Naturalist 35(2):127-190.

Avian Power Line Interaction Committee (APLIC). 2006. Suggested Practices for Avian Protection on Power Lines: The State of the Art in 2006. Edison Electric Institute, APLIC, and the California Energy Commission. Washington, D.C. and Sacramento, California.

___. 2012. Reducing Avian Collisions with Power Lines: The State of the Art in 2012. Edison Electric Institute and APLIC, Washington, D.C.

Biggins, D.E. 2006. The Symposium in Context. In Recovery of the Black-footed Ferret: Progress and Continuing Challenges, edited by J.E. Roelle, B.J. Miller, J.L. Godbey, and D.E. Biggins, pp. 3-5. U.S. Geological Survey, Fort Collins, Colorado. Blomquist, F. 2012. Personal communication between Frank Blomquist, BLM Botanist Rawlins Field Office, and Alison Pruett, EPG Biologist, concerning occurance of Cedar Rim thistle in Carbon and Sweetwater counties. February 7, 2012. Beidleman, C. 2000. Colorado Partners in Flight Bird Conservation Plan – version 1.0. Physiographic Area 36: Central Shortgrass Prairie. Estes Park, CO: Colorado Partners in Flight. Bosworth, W.R., III. 2003. Vertebrate Information Compiled by the Utah Natural Heritage Program: A Progress Report. Publication No. 03-45. Utah Division of Wildlife Resources, Salt Lake City, Utah. Bureau of Land Management (BLM). 1987. House Range Resource Management Plan and Record of Decision Rangeland Program Summary. Fillmore Field Office, Fillmore, Utah. ___. 1990. Record of Decision for the Pony Express Resource Management Plan and Rangeland Program Summary for Utah County. Salt Lake Field Office, Salt Lake City, Utah. ___. 1997. White River Record of Decision and Approved Resource Management Plan. White River Field Office, Meeker, Colorado. ___. 2008a. Record of Decision and Approved Rawlins Resource Management Plan. Rawlins Field Office, Rawlins, Wyoming. ___. 2008b. Record of Decision and Approved Resource Management Plan. Richfield Field Office, Richfield, Utah. ___. 2008c. Price Field Office Record of Decision and Approved Resource Management Plan. Price, Utah. ___. 2008d. Record of Decision and Approved Resource Management Plan. Vernal Field Office, Vernal, Utah. ___. 2009. Colorado Bureau of Land Management State Director's Sensitive Species List (Animals and Plants). Colorado State Office, Lakewood. Available at: http://www.blm.gov/co/st/en/BLM_Programs/botany/Sensitive_Species_List_.html, accessed November 20, 2009. ___. 2010. Bureau of Land Management Wyoming Sensitive Species Policy and List. Wyoming State Office, Cheyenne, Wyoming. ___. 2011a. Little Snake Record of Decision and Approved Resource Management Plan. Little Snake Field Office, Craig, Colorado.

Energy Gateway South Transmission Project B1-93 Plan of Development Appendix B1 – Biological Resources Conservation Plan November 2016

BLM. 2011b. Interim Bureau of Land Management Sensitive Plant Species List for Utah. Utah State Office, Salt Lake City, Utah. ___. 2015a. Energy Gateway South Transmission Project Biological Assessment. July 2015. ___. 2015b. Final Environmental Impact Statement and Land-use Plan Amendments for the Energy Gateway South Transmission Project. Case Files: Wyoming (WYM-174597), Colorado (COC- 72907), Utah (UTU-87237). September 2015. Coffin, D.P., W.K. Lauenroth, and I.C. Burke. 1996. Recovery of Vegetation in a Semiarid Grassland 53 Years after Disturbance. Ecological Applications 6(2):538-555. Connelly, J.W., S.T. Knick, M.A. Schroeder, and S.J. Stiver. 2004. Conservation Assessment of Greater Sage-grouse and Sagebrush Habitats. Unpublished Report, Western Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies, Cheyenne, Wyoming. Connelly, J.W., S.T. Knick, C.E. Braun, W.L. Baker, E.A. Beever, T. Christiansen, K.E. Doherty, E.O. Garton, C.A. Hagen, S.E. Hanser, D.H. Johnson, M. Leu, R.F. Miller, D.E. Naugle, S.J. Oyler- McCance, D.A. Pyke, K.P. Reese, M.A. Schroeder, S.J. Stiver, B.L. Walker, and M.J. Wisdom. 2011. Conservation of Greater Sage-grouse: A Synthesis of Current Trends and Future Management. In Greater Sage-grouse: of a Landscape Species and its Habitats, edited by S.T. Knick and J.W. Connelly, pp. 549-563. Cooper Ornithological Union, University of California Press, Berkeley. Corman, T.E. and C. Wise-Gervais. 2005. Arizona Breeding Bird Atlas. University of New Mexico Press, Albuquerque. Ehrlich, P.R., D.S. Dobkin, and D. Wheye. 1988. The Birder's Handbook: A Field Guide to the Natural History of North American Birds. Simon & Schuster, New York, New York. Ellstrand, N.C. and D.R. Elam. 1993. Population Genetic Consequences of Small Population Size: Implications for Plant Conservation. Annual Review of Ecology and Systematics 24:217-242. Environmental Planning Group (EPG). 2013. Draft habitat overlay analysis of selected threatened, endangered, candidate, and sensitive species for Energy Gateway South Transmission Project. Available in Energy Gateway South Transmission Project Environmental Impact Statement Administrative Record. Esch, K.L., G.P. Beauvais, and D.A. Keinath. 2005. Species Conservation Assessment for Black-footed Ferret (Mustela nigripes) in Wyoming. Wyoming Natural Diversity Database, University of Wyoming, Laramie. Estes-Zumpf, W.A. and J.L. Rachlow. 2009. Natal Dispersal by Pygmy Rabbits (Brachylagus idahoensis). Journal of Mammalogy 902:363-372. Farmer, A.M. 1993. The Effects of Dust on Vegetation: A Review. Environmental Pollution 79:63-75. Fertig, W. and R. Thurston. 2003. Modeling the Potential Distribution of BLM Sensitive and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Threatened and Endangered Plant Species in Wyoming. Wyoming Natural Diversity Database, University of Wyoming, Laramie. Fertig, W.R. Black, and P. Wolken. 2005. Rangewide Status Review of Ute Ladies’-tresses (Spiranthes diluvialis). Central Utah Water Conservancy District and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. September 30. Floyd, T., C.S. Elphick, C. Graham, K. Mack, R.G. Elston, E.M. Ammon, and J.D. Boone. 2007. Atlas of the Breeding Birds of . University of Nevada Press, Reno. Foster, D., F. Swanson, J. Aber, I. Burke, N. Brokaw, D. Tilman, and A. Knapp. 2003. The Importance of Land-Use Legacies to Ecology and Conservation. BioScience 53(1):77-88.

Energy Gateway South Transmission Project B1-94 Plan of Development Appendix B1 – Biological Resources Conservation Plan November 2016

Ganey, J.L. 1998. Spotted Owl. In The Raptors of Arizona, edited by R.L. Glinski, pp. 220. University of Arizona Press, Tucson. Gibson, R.M. 1996. A Re-evaluation of Hotspot Settlement in Lekking Sage-Grouse. Animal Behaviour 52:993-1005. Gill, R.B. 1965. Distribution and Abundance of a Population of Sage-grouse in North Park, Colorado. Master’s Thesis. Colorado State University, Fort Collins. Glennon, J. 2012. Personal communication between Jim Glennon, BLM Botanist Rock Springs Field Office, and Alison Pruett, EPG Biologist, concerning suitable habitat for Rock Springs Field Office rare plants. February 14, 2012. Gutierrez, R. J., A.B. Franklin, and W.S. Lahaye. 1995. Spotted Owl (Strix occidentalis). In Birds of North America, No. 179 (A. Poole and F. Gill, eds.). The Academy of Natural Sciences, Philadelphia, PA, and The American Ornithologists' Union, Washington, D.C. Hobbs, R.J., E. Higgs, and J.A. Harris. 2009. Novel Ecosystems: Implications for Conservation and Restoration. Trends in Ecology and Evolution 24(11):599-605. Hogrefe, T., C. Bailey, P. Thompson, and B. Nadolski. 2005. Boreal Toad (Bufo boreas boreas) Conservation Plan. Publication Number 5-37. Utah Division of Wildlife Resources, Salt Lake City, Utah. Hughes, J.M. 1999. Yellow-billed Cuckoo (Coccyzus americanus). The Birds of North America Online, edited by A. Poole. Cornell Lab of Ornithology. Ithaca, New York. Available at http://bna.birds.cornell.edu/bna/species/418. Johnsgard, P.A. 1988. North American Owls: Biology and Natural History. Smithsonian Institution Press, Washington, D.C. Keinath, D. 2004. Species Assessment for White-Tailed Prairie Dog (Cynomys leucurus) in Wyoming. Prepared by the Wyoming Natural Diversity Database - University of Wyoming, Laramie, Wyoming. Keinath, D. and M. McGee. 2005. Boreal Toad (Bufo boreas boreas): A Technical Conservation Assessment. Prepared for U.S. Department of Agriculture Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Region. Prepared by Wyoming Natural Diversity Database, Laramie Wyoming and EPO Biology, Boulder, Colorado. Keinath, D.A. and G.P. Beauvais. 2006. Wyoming Pocket Gopher (Thomomys clusius): A Technical Conservation Assessment. Pepared for U.S. Department of Agriculture Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Region. Prepared by Wyoming Natural Diversity Database, University of Wyoming, Laramie, Wyoming. Knopf, F L., and B. J. Miller. 1994. Charadrius montanus: Montane, Grassland, or Bare-Ground Plover? Auk 111(2):504-506. Knopf, F.L. and J.R Rupert. 1995. Habits and habitats of mountain plovers in California. Condor 97:743- 751. Knowles, C.J. and C.J. Stoner. 1982. Selective use of Black-tailed Prairie Dog towns by Mountain Plovers. Condor 84(1):71-74. Laymon, S.A. 1998. Yellow-billed Cuckoo (Coccyzus americanus). In The Riparian Bird Conservation Plan: A Strategy for Reversing the Decline of Riparian-Associated Birds in California. California Partners in Flight.

Energy Gateway South Transmission Project B1-95 Plan of Development Appendix B1 – Biological Resources Conservation Plan November 2016

Morris, L.R., T.A. Monaco, and R.L. Sheley. 2011. Land-Use Legacies and Vegetation Recovery 90 Years After Cultivation in Great Basin Sagebrush Ecosystems. Society for Range Management 64(5):488-497. North American Electric Reliability Corporation (NERC). 2006. Transmission Vegetation Management Program NERC Standard FAC-003-1. April 7 _____. 2008. Transmission Vegetation Management Program: Standard Development Roadmap. October 22. _____. 2009. Transmission Vegetation Management Program NERC Standard FAC-003-2 Technical Reference. September 9.

PacifiCorp. 2011. Rocky Mountain Power Utah Avian Protection Plan, Updated June 2011.

Parrish, J.R., F. Howe, and R. Norvell. 2002. Utah Partners in Flight Avian Conservation Strategy. Version 2.0. Utah Division of Wildlife Resources, Publication Number 02-27, Salt Lake City, Utah. Patterson, R.L. 1952. The Sage grouse in Wyoming. Wyoming Game and Fish Commission and Sage Books, Denver, Colorado. Platte River Recovery Implementation Program. 2006. General Information about the Platte River Recovery Implementation Program. Available at: https://www.platteriverprogram.org/News/Documents/PRRIP%20General%20Fact%20Sheet.pdf, accessed October 2012. SWCA Environmental Consultants. 2015. Deseret milkvetch preliminary survey results. Unpublished raw data. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS). 1982. Clay Phacelia Phacelia argillacea Atwood Recovery Plan. Mountain-Prairie Region (6), Denver, Colorado. ___. 1990. Uinta Basin Hookless Cactus () Recovery Plan. Mountain-Prairie Region (6), Denver, Colorado. ___. 1992. Interim Survey Requirements for Ute Ladies’-tresses Orchid (Spiranthes diluvialis). November 23, 1992.

___. 1994. Utah reed-mustards: Clay reed-mustard (Schoenocrambe argillacea), Barneby reed-mustard (), Shrubby reed-mustard (Schoenocrambe suffrutescens) recovery plan. Mountain-Prairie Region (6), Denver, Colorado.

___. 1995. Ute Ladies'-tresses (Spiranthes diluvialis) Recovery Plan. Mountain-Prairie Region (6), Denver, Colorado. ___. 2005. Final programmatic Biological Opinion on the Management Plan for Endangered Fishes in the Yampa River Basin. Ecological Services, Denver, Colorado. ___. 2006. Biological Opinion on the Platte River Recovery Implementation Program. Ecological Services. Nebraska Field Office. Grand Island, Nebraska. ___. 2010. Schoenocrambe suffrutescens (Shrubby Reed-mustard) 5-Year Review: Summary and Evaluation. Available at http://ecos.fws.gov/docs/five_year_review/doc3578.pdf, accessed November 3, 2011. ___. 2011a. Schoenocrambe argillacea (Clay Reed-mustard) 5-Year Review: Summary and Evaluation. Utah Ecological Services, West Valley City, Utah.

Energy Gateway South Transmission Project B1-96 Plan of Development Appendix B1 – Biological Resources Conservation Plan November 2016

FWS. 2011b. Astragalus deserticus (Deseret Milk-vetch) 5-Year Review: Summary and Evaluation. Utah Ecological Services, West Valley City, Utah. ___. 2011c. White River beardtongue is in Uintah County, Utah, and western Rio Blanco County, Colorado, near the White River to the vicinity of Evacuation Creek and in the vicinity of Willow Creek . ___. 2012. Recovery plan for the Mexican spotted owl. Southwest Region (2), Albuquerque, New Mexico. ___. 2015. A Natural History Summary and Survey Protocol for the Western Distinct Population Segment of the Yellow-billed Cuckoo.

U.S. Forest Service. 2009. Operational Guidelines for Aquatic Invasive Species Prevention and Equipment Cleaning. Interagency Guidance – Revised August 2009. Washington, D.C.

___. 2013. Intermountain Region (Region 4) Threatened, Endangered, Proposed, and Sensitive Species: Known and Suspected Distribution by Forest. Ogden, Utah. Utah Division of Wildlife Resources (UDWR). 2005. Plant Information Compiled by the Utah Natural Heritage Program: A Progress Report. Salt Lake City, Utah. Utah Natural Heritage Program. 2012. Shapefiles depicting locations of special status species in Utah. GIS data received on January 6, 2012 from S. Lindsey, Salt Lake City, Utah. Utah Native Plant Society. 1989. Report for 1989 Challenge Cost Share Project, Uinta National Forest. Target species: Phacelia argillacea Atwood (Clay phacelia). Prepared by M.A. "Ben" Franklin and J.S. Tuhy. ___. 2012. Utah Rare Plant Guide (online), edited by A.J. Frate. Available at: www.utahrareplants.org, accessed Spring 2015. Welsh, S.L., N.D. Atwood, and J.L. Reveal. 1975. Endangered, threatened, extinct, endemic and rare or restricted Utah vascular plants. Great Basin Naturalist 35:327-376. Wyoming Game and Fish Department (WGFD). 2005. Mammalian Species of Special Concern in Wyoming. Cheyenne, Wyoming. ___. 2010. Wyoming’s State Wildlife Action Plan. Interagency Advisory Team, Cheyenne, Wyoming.

Energy Gateway South Transmission Project B1-97 Plan of Development Appendix B1 – Biological Resources Conservation Plan November 2016

THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK

Attachment A Biological Resources Survey Requirements THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK TABLE OF CONTENTS

A1.1 Introduction ...... A-1

A1.2 Need for Biological Resource Surveys ...... A-1

A1.3 Approach to Biological Resource Surveys ...... A-2

A1.4 Geotechnical Investigation ...... A-3

A1.5 Transmission Line Construction ...... A-12

Energy Gateway South Transmission Project Attachment A-i Plan of Development Appendix B1 – Biological Resources Conservation Plan November 2016 Attachment A – Biological Resources Survey Requirements THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK

LIST OF ACRONYMS

Company PacifiCorp (doing business as Rocky Mountain Power)

BLM Bureau of Land Management

EIS Environmental Impact Statement EPG Environmental Planning Group, LLC ESA Endangered Species Act of 1973

FWS U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service

POD Plan of Development Project Energy Gateway South Transmission Project

U.S. United States USACE U.S. Army Corps of Engineers

Energy Gateway South Transmission Project Attachment A-iii Plan of Development Appendix B1 – Biological Resources Conservation Plan November 2016 Attachment A – Biological Resources Survey Requirements

THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK

ATTACHMENT A – BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES SURVEY REQUIREMENTS

A1.1 Introduction The purpose of this survey plan is to define the biological survey requirements and methodologies for the Energy Gateway South Transmission Project (Project), document those details in the Project Plan of Development (POD), and communicate the survey requirements among PacifiCorp (Company), the coordinating agencies, and Project environmental and engineering staff. The plan addresses surveys that must be completed to inform the design of the transmission line and associated facilities, support the implementation of the geotechnical investigation, and prepare the POD for the transmission line. This survey plan does not contain detailed work plans, strategies or schedules for completion, or maps of survey areas. These details will be documented in separate Project-specific survey implementation plans to be developed in coordination with the agencies by the Company and their contractor to be approved by the Bureau of Land Management (BLM), other relevant agencies, and the Company prior to conducting surveys. In addition to development of the survey implementation plans, pre-field activities would include analysis of aerial imagery to define suitable and unsuitable habitats, in-field habitat assessments for some species as identified in this plan, and coordination with the Company and relevant agencies for each survey.

This plan documents the requirements and approach to biological surveys that will be necessary during various phases of the Project. Detailed survey plans need to be developed and approved by the agencies and Company prior to geotechnical or construction activities. This survey plan does not address biological monitoring that could be required as a component of environmental and transmission line construction, or special circumstances that may warrant collection of additional biological resource data. Requirements for environmental and construction monitoring will be informed by the findings of surveys described in this document and will be documented in the POD.

A1.2 Need for Biological Resource Surveys Biological resource surveys are necessary to inform the application of mitigation measures and to ensure compliance with laws, regulations, and agency policies described in the Project Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) as well as inform implementation of stipulations analyzed in the EIS and included in the right-of-way grant. The right-of-way grant will contain stipulations applicable to all phases of the Project, including a preliminary geotechnical investigation. Mitigation measures described in the EIS include seasonal avoidance measures that would be employed during construction as well as measures to avoid or reduce impacts on sensitive resources.

Surveys will be conducted for plants and wildlife that could be affected by the Project and are designated as threatened, endangered, or candidates for listing under the Endangered Species Act of 1973 (ESA) and species listed as sensitive by the U.S. Forest Service, BLM, or states crossed by the route selected for construction of the transmission line. Surveys to identify potential wetlands and waters of the United States (U.S.) are required to facilitate avoidance measures, and if necessary, obtain permits from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE), as detailed in this plan. All results and information gathered through habitat modeling, desktop analysis, and field surveys will be provided to the Company and the agencies for the Project record and will be incorporated into the POD as appropriate.

Based on the analysis conducted for the EIS, it is likely that some special status plants, wildlife, wetlands, or waters of the U.S. will be present at proposed geotechnical sites. The Company has developed decision

Energy Gateway South Transmission Project Attachment A-1 Plan of Development Appendix B1 – Biological Resources Conservation Plan November 2016 Attachment A – Biological Resources Survey Requirements

criteria that will be included in the Geotechnical Investigation POD and implemented if sensitive resources are detected near a geotechnical site.

In consultation with the Company and the agencies, survey results and information gathered will inform application of mitigation measures (e.g., seasonal restrictions, design considerations, and spatial avoidance) and inform final development of the Biological Resource Monitoring Plan in the POD. A process for the reporting of survey results will be developed by the Company/Construction Contractor and approved by the BLM and applicable agencies. The process should include a coordination strategy for the timing, format, and recipients of results reports. The process should establish decision criteria that would be employed without having to produce formal reports that would require agency review and response. Establishment of decision criteria would outline the process for reporting observations to the applicable agencies in a manner that would allow construction activities to proceed by employing preselected mitigation measures, biological monitoring, or requests for variances. Likewise, the decision criteria should identify “red flag” observations (e.g., a black-footed ferret observation) that would necessitate the immediate suspension of construction activities and the reporting requirements for those resources.

A1.3 Approach to Biological Resource Surveys A1.3.1 Overview Due to the temporal separation and different spatial requirements of the geotechnical investigation phase and the transmission line construction phase of the Project, different approaches for collecting required biological resource information will be employed. The geotechnical investigation will occur prior to the surveys necessary for the transmission line design and completion of the POD and require that biological data be collected around the borehole locations, overland travel areas, and new and improved access routes (geotechnical site). Transmission line construction will require biological data to be collected along the entire right-of-way, new and improved access routes, and ancillary facilities. This document presents the recommended approach to conducting the biological resource surveys for the geotechnical investigation and the transmission line construction separately. Changes to the approach described in this document could modify the survey requirements for some species.

A1.3.2 Important Considerations for Conducting Surveys The approach to conducting biological resource surveys for each phase of the Project should be developed in consideration of the data needs for each resource, potential impact of survey findings on development of the relevant POD and final Project design, as well as schedule implications. To promote cost efficiencies, some surveys could be conducted concurrently, if approved by the relevant agencies and Company. The approach for each biological resource survey must be agreed upon by the agencies and the Company and detailed in the survey implementation plans, to be developed.

The goal of the geotechnical investigation surveys is to collect an appropriate amount of information to inform the decision criteria developed by the Company in the POD (including the Geotechnical Investigations POD) to avoid or mitigate potential impacts to sensitive resources. The goal of the transmission line construction surveys is to collect an appropriate amount of information to design the transmission line, complete the POD, and apply mitigation and achieve compliance with agency policies, stipulations, and biological resource goals as outlined in the right-of-way grant. Depending on the resource and phase of the Project, data needs may vary from relatively simple, preconstruction field resource checks (e.g., migratory birds) to data necessary to inform the design of the Project. Survey results will be used to determine compliance with the ESA, verify permit thresholds, or prepare required

Energy Gateway South Transmission Project Attachment A-2 Plan of Development Appendix B1 – Biological Resources Conservation Plan November 2016 Attachment A – Biological Resources Survey Requirements

permits (e.g., wetlands and waters of the U.S. and species listed under the ESA). Depending on the results of surveys conducted to inform design of the transmission line and completion of the POD, additional biological resource surveys may be required during the year of construction to verify resources conditions or satisfy monitoring requirements. These surveys will be identified in the Biological Resources Monitoring Plan included in the POD. The strategy for collecting biological information for each resource should promote having required information available in a timely manner to inform Company and agency decisions. Biological information collected for the Project has temporal relevance due to annual variations in environmental conditions. The results of some surveys also have explicit expiration dates that are defined by agency protocols. The survey strategy for each resource should consider the temporal relevance of data collected as well as the impact of the survey findings on the Project schedule and design. For example, it may be advisable for the Project to conduct critical surveys that will inform Project design one or more years ahead of the construction schedule to allow adequate time for design modifications and preparation of the POD. In some cases, this may require additional surveys or spot-checks prior to construction but will help avoid unnecessary Project delays during construction.

Special circumstances or needs could modify the strategy presented in this survey plan or make it advisable to collect supplemental biological information. The locations of Project features, such as towers, new and improved access routes, and ancillary facilities have not been determined at the time this document was prepared (February 2016). Coordination between Project environmental and engineering staff as features are designed can help with early identification and resolution of issues affecting the biological resource surveys. Furthermore, the desire or need for additional flexibility during the geotechnical investigation or construction of the transmission line may make it advisable to collect information earlier, from a larger geographic area, or more frequently than the minimum requirements presented in this document. The anticipated need for flexibility (e.g., seasonal stipulation waivers, modifications, or approval of alternative access routes or drilling methods to avoid areas closed by seasonal restrictions) should be carefully discussed between the Company and agencies in selection of an ultimate survey strategy.

The approach to conducting surveys for wetlands and waters of the U.S. presented in this plan assumes that all impacts associated with the Project could be permitted under USACE Nationwide Permit 12 and that permits would not be required for the geotechnical investigation because impacts on all wetlands and waters of the U.S. could be avoided during the geotechnical investigation. Nationwide Permit 12 covers activities required for the construction of utility lines and associated facilities, provided that each crossing does not result in the loss of greater than 0.5 acre of waters of the U.S. Coordination with the USACE will be required to approve this approach to conducting required surveys and obtaining necessary permits. Under Nationwide Permit 12, impacts on wetlands and waters of the U.S. are calculated separately for each distinct water resource crossed.

A1.4 Geotechnical Investigation Geotechnical investigations will be conducted at approximately 375 geotechnical sites located along the route selected for construction of the transmission line. The investigation consists of drilling and sampling soils to a depth of 50 to 60 feet to determine subsurface stability, the results of which will be used to design each transmission line foundation and structure. Also, geotechnical investigation will be conducted at series compensation stations to quantify subsurface conditions and engineering properties of fill and placement of required fill material. Appendix G is the Geotechnical Investigation POD, which provides a description of the geotechnical investigation.

Energy Gateway South Transmission Project Attachment A-3 Plan of Development Appendix B1 – Biological Resources Conservation Plan November 2016 Attachment A – Biological Resources Survey Requirements

The approach to, timing of, and requirements for surveys required for the geotechnical investigations are driven by:

 Environmental regulations  The anticipated drilling schedule  The geographic area requiring surveys  The relatively short duration of activity at each site  The degree to which the Project features and schedule can be modified based on the survey findings  The level of biological resource information needed to authorize geotechnical activities  The Company’s need to understand the restrictions and mitigation actions associated with sensitive resources prior to initiation of geotechnical activities.

A list of special status plants and wildlife for which surveys must be conducted, the need for any pre- survey habitat assessments, the agency-approved survey methodology and the temporal and spatial extent of each survey for the geotechnical investigation are included in Table 1.

A1.4.1 Special Status Plants and Wetlands and Waters of the United States To allow adequate time for required agency coordination, the timing of surveys for special status plants, wetlands, and waters of the U.S. should be carefully evaluated by the Company in order to accommodate the desired construction schedule.

Geotechnical site surveys would generally be timed to correspond with the bloom period for target species that may be present at each geotechnical site. The agencies may require that reference populations of the target species be visited to confirm that target species are flowering, fruiting, or otherwise identifiable prior to initiating surveys. Multiple site visits may be necessary to ensure that surveys are conducted during the appropriate life stage (usually flowering or fruiting) of all target species. Multiple site visits also may be necessary if the survey windows do not overlap to sufficiently allow for surveys for all target species to be completed in a single visit. The schedule and number of required visits to each geotechnical site will be developed and documented in an agency- and Company-approved geotechnical investigation survey strategy that will be developed following identification of the specific locations of geotechnical sites by the Company. A list of plant species for which geotechnical site surveys must be conducted, the agency-approved survey methodology, needs for pre-survey habitat assessments, and the temporal and spatial extent required for each species is included in Table 1.

Habitat assessments, including field verification, to identify potentially suitable habitats for some special status plants may be required. Surveys for some special status plants may be required at least one year prior to geotechnical exploration activities and additional years of surveys may be required after the geotechnical exploration activities. These surveys will be completed using the criteria outlined in the Geotechnical Investigation POD.

Special status plants detected during surveys will be recorded and documented in survey reports. The Company, in coordination with relevant agencies, will employ one or more of the decision criteria or mitigation actions included in the Geotechnical Investigation POD to avoid sensitive plant populations. All decision criteria or mitigation actions employed will be agreed upon by the agencies prior to initiation of geotechnical investigation activities at any particular site. Depending on the schedule for completion of the surveys and initiation of the geotechnical investigation, the survey reports may be completed before or after coordination with the agencies and completion of the geotechnical work at a particular site.

Energy Gateway South Transmission Project Attachment A-4 Plan of Development Appendix B1 – Biological Resources Conservation Plan November 2016 Attachment A – Biological Resources Survey Requirements

TABLE 1 BIOLOGICAL SURVEY REQUIREMENTS FOR GEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATION Pre-survey Habitat Geographic Region Number of Assessment Where Surveys are Timing of Surveys in Years of Survey Survey Results Survey Window Resource Resource Status Survey Requirement Requirement Required Survey Area Relation to Project Required Valid For (approximate) Methodology Wildlife Listed Under the Endangered Species Act Adhere to seasonal Federally Black-footed ferret restrictions to avoid the need endangered/experimental Not applicable Not applicable Not applicable Not applicable Not applicable Not applicable Not applicable Not applicable (Mustela nigripes) for surveys (refer to nonessential population Attachment G) Within 0.5 mile of Adhere to seasonal Required; refer to suitable habitat Mexican spotted owl restrictions to avoid the need conservation identified via habitat Not applicable Federally threatened Not applicable Not applicable Not applicable Not applicable Not applicable (Strix occidentalis lucida) for surveys (refer to measures in Section assessment. Generally Habitat assessment required Attachment G) B1.4 in the Argyle Canyon area of Utah Within 0.5 mile of Adhere to seasonal Required; refer to suitable habitat Yellow-billed cuckoo restrictions to avoid the need conservation Not applicable Federally threatened identified via pre- Not applicable Not applicable Not applicable Not applicable Not applicable (Coccyzus americanus) for surveys (refer to measures in Section Habitat assessment required survey habitat Attachment G) B1.4 assessment Bureau of Land Management and U.S. Forest Service Sensitive Wildlife Surveys required to identify active nests near geotechnical sites where geotechnical drilling would occur during raptor nesting seasons and Within 1.0, 0.75, 0.5, where raptor nesting substrate or 0.25 mile (i.e., cliffs, trees, man-made Protected by the (depending on the structures/platforms) occurs Required for Migratory Bird Treaty Geotechnical sites appropriate BLM/ During the appropriate Pedestrian surveys according to within the appropriate spatial geotechnical activities Same breeding Act, Bald and Golden where drilling would FWS field office BLM/FWS field office Nesting Habitats and Surveying Raptor nests buffers for raptor nests Not applicable where appropriate 1 season surveys are Eagle Protection Act. occur during raptor spatial buffers for each seasonal buffers for Techniques for Common Western (Migratory Bird Treaty Act, nesting season buffers conducted Many are USFS- and nesting seasons raptor species) around each raptor species Raptors (Call 1978) Romin and Muck 2002, Utah cannot be avoided BLM-sensitive species work areas, overland BLM guidance on nesting travel, and new and raptors, Executive Order improved access routes 13186, BLM Instruction Memorandum No. 2006-096 – Utah Supplemental Planning Guidance: Raptor Best Management Practices) Within 0.25, 1.0, or 2.0 Communal winter Geotechnical sites miles (depending on Protected by the Surveys required only roosts November 1 Adhere to seasonal where drilling would the appropriate Bald eagle communal and Migratory Bird Treaty if geotechnical through April 1 restrictions to avoid the need occur near BLM/FWS field office winter roost areas Act and Bald and Not applicable activities occur during Not applicable 1 year To be included in the Final POD for surveys (refer to waterbodies during spatial buffers) of work (Haliaeetus leucocephalus) Golden Eagle Protection winter roosting and Concentration areas Attachment G) roosting and areas, overland travel, Act concentration periods February 1 through concentration periods and new and improved August 15 access routes Geotechnical sites Species petitioned for above 7,000 feet, east Within 100 meters of listing under the ESA; of Soldier Summit and work areas, overland Breeding season April Survey potential BLM- and state-sensitive Adhere to seasonal adjacent to Kyune and travel, and new and through July Pedestrian surveys according to Boreal habitats if Boreal toad species; protected by restrictions to avoid the need the Utah County/ improved access Toad Conservation Plan in the State of Not applicable geotechnical activities Not applicable 1 year (Bufo boreas boreas) Utah Boreal Toad for surveys (refer to Carbon County line routes. Surveys will Migration season Utah (Utah Division of Wildlife occur during breeding Conservation Plan 2005; Attachment G) where drilling would extend to 300 meters in (August through Resources 2005) and migration seasons USFS-sensitive species occur during the areas where suitable September) region 4 breeding or migration habitat is found. seasons

Energy Gateway South Transmission Project Attachment A-5 Plan of Development Appendix B1 – Biological Resources Conservation Plan November 2016 Attachment A – Biological Resources Survey Requirements

TABLE 1 BIOLOGICAL SURVEY REQUIREMENTS FOR GEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATION Pre-survey Habitat Geographic Region Number of Assessment Where Surveys are Timing of Surveys in Years of Survey Survey Results Survey Window Resource Resource Status Survey Requirement Requirement Required Survey Area Relation to Project Required Valid For (approximate) Methodology Within 4.0 miles of all Adhere to seasonal All designated sage- work areas, overland BLM- sensitive species, Greater sage-grouse restrictions to avoid the need grouse habitat along travel, and new and USFS-sensitive species, Not applicable Not applicable Not applicable Not applicable Not applicable Not applicable (Centrocercus urophasianus) for surveys (refer to the Agency Preferred improved access routes state- sensitive species Attachment G) Alternative route in designated sage- grouse habitat Pedestrian (presence/absence) surveys April 10 through July following the protocols identified in Geotechnical sites 10 in Wyoming Within 300 feet of Field Surveys for Mountain Plovers in FWS species of concern; Surveys required by BLM near areas of Where required, prior Mountain plover work areas, overland the Rawlins Field Office (Beauvais BLM- and state-sensitive Handbook 6840 and BLM Not applicable potentially suitable to ground-disturbing 1 1 year May 1 through June 15 (Charadrius montanus) travel, and new and 2003) and in Model of breeding habitat species (Wyoming) Rawlins RMP (BLM 2008) habitat identified in activities in Colorado and Utah improved access routes of the mountain plover (Charadrius the EIS montanus) in western Wyoming

(Beauvais and Smith 2003) Geotechnical sites Within 100 meters of Surveys can be Pedestrian (presence/absence) surveys BLM- and state-sensitive Surveys required by BLM near areas of Where required, prior Pygmy rabbit work areas, overland To be included in conducted any time of following the protocols identified in species, FWS species of Handbook 6840 and BLM Not applicable potentially suitable to ground-disturbing 1 (Brachylagus idahoensis) travel, and new and the Final POD year; winter surveys Surveying for Pygmy Rabbits concern Rawlins RMP (BLM 2008) habitat identified in activities improved access routes preferred (Ulmschneider et al. 2004) the EIS Geotechnical sites Within 660 feet of Pedestrian (presence/absence) surveys BLM- and state-sensitive Surveys required by BLM near areas of Where required, prior White-tailed prairie dog work areas, overland To be included in April through according to the protocols identified in species, FWS species of Handbook 6840 and BLM Not applicable potentially suitable to ground-disturbing 1 (Cynomys leucurus) travel, and new and the Final POD September Wildlife Survey Protocols Pinedale concern Rawlins RMP (BLM 2008) habitat identified in activities improved access routes Field Office (BLM 2011) the EIS Within 246 feet (75 meters) of work areas, Pedestrian surveys to identify potential Surveys required by BLM overland travel, and Within areas of Wyoming pocket gopher colonies, and BLM- and state-sensitive Handbook 6840 and BLM new and improved Where required, prior Wyoming pocket gopher potentially suitable To be included in April 1 through if required, classification surveys (via species, FWS species of Rawlins RMP (BLM 2008) Not applicable access routes near to ground-disturbing 1 (Thomomys clusius) habitat identified in the Final POD September 30 live capture) according to the protocols concern and 2015 Rawlins RMP areas of potentially activities the (WYNDD) model identified in Pocket Gopher Surveys in Maintenance Action suitable habitat Southwestern Wyoming (WYNDD identified in the (WYNDD) model Plants Listed Under the Endangered Species Act Within 650 feet of work areas, overland Follow protocol in FWS Utah Field travel, and new and Required; refer to Within suitable habitat Office Guidelines for Conducting and Surveys required based on improved access routes Where required, prior Clay phacelia Listed as endangered conservation identified via pre- Throughout the month Reporting Botanical Inventories and conservation measures to ground-disturbing 1 1 year (Phacelia argillacea) under the ESA measures in Section survey habitat of June Monitoring of Federally Listed, included in the BA Surveys will avoid activities B1.4 assessment Proposed and Candidate Plants (FWS reintroduction sites and 2011) known occurrences of the species Follow protocol in FWS Utah Field Required; refer to Within 300 feet of Office Guidelines for Conducting and Surveys required based on Within suitable habitat Where required, prior Clay reed-mustard Listed as threatened conservation work areas, overland May through early Reporting Botanical Inventories and conservation measures identified via habitat to ground-disturbing 1 1 year (Schoenocrambe argillacea) under the ESA measures in Section travel, and new and June Monitoring of Federally Listed, included in the BA assessment activities B1.4 improved access routes Proposed and Candidate Plants (FWS 2011)

Energy Gateway South Transmission Project Attachment A-6 Plan of Development Appendix B1 – Biological Resources Conservation Plan November 2016 Attachment A – Biological Resources Survey Requirements

TABLE 1 BIOLOGICAL SURVEY REQUIREMENTS FOR GEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATION Pre-survey Habitat Geographic Region Number of Assessment Where Surveys are Timing of Surveys in Years of Survey Survey Results Survey Window Resource Resource Status Survey Requirement Requirement Required Survey Area Relation to Project Required Valid For (approximate) Methodology Within 300 feet of work areas, overland travel, and new and Follow protocol in FWS Utah Field Desktop analysis Within suitable habitat improved access routes Office Guidelines for Conducting and Surveys required based on required; refer to identified via desktop Where required, prior Deseret milkvetch Listed as threatened to determine Reporting Botanical Inventories and conservation measures conservation analysis. Generally to ground-disturbing 1 1 year May through June (Astragalus desereticus) under the ESA occupancy prior to Monitoring of Federally Listed, included in the BA measures in Section near Thistle Creek, activities construction or 400 Proposed and Candidate Plants (FWS B1.4 Utah feet if activities are 2011) upslope of suitable or occupied habitat Follow protocol in FWS Utah Field Office Guidelines for Conducting and Within FWS mapped Reporting Botanical Inventories and suitable habitat near Within 300 feet of Monitoring of Federally Listed, Shrubby reed-mustard Surveys required based on the Badland Cliffs Where required, prior Listed as endangered work areas, overland Mid-April to early Proposed and Candidate Plants (FWS (Schoenocrambe conservation measures Not applicable population (i.e., to ground-disturbing 1 1 year under the ESA travel, and new and August. 2011) suffrutescens) included in the BA Wrinkles Road) in activities improved access routes Duchesne County, Surveys will be conducted during the Utah flowering and/or fruiting period when the plant can be detected. Within 300 feet of Follow Project-specific survey Surveys required based on Within habitat Where required, prior Uinta Basin hookless cactus Listed as threatened work areas, overland To be included in Any time without protocols developed during Section 7 conservation measures Not applicable polygons provided by to ground-disturbing 1 (Sclerocactus wetlandicus) under the ESA travel, and new and the Final POD snow cover consultation. Refer to conservation included in the BA the FWS activities improved access routes measures in Section B1.4 1 year prior to any temporary disturbance in Required; refer to Within 300 feet of suitable habitat; 2 Surveys required based on Within suitable habitat Where required, prior Survey techniques described in Interim Ute ladies'-tresses Listed as threatened conservation work areas, overland additional years conservation measures identified via habitat to ground-disturbing 1 year Throughout August Survey Requirements for Ute ladies’- (Spiranthes diluvialis) under the ESA measures in Section travel, and new and of surveys included in the BA assessment activities tresses Orchid (FWS 1992) B1.4 improved access routes would be conducted after the temporary disturbance Bureau of Land Management and U.S. Forest Service Sensitive Plants Within 150 feet of Vicinity of Argyle Where required, prior Argyle Canyon phacelia BLM-sensitive species Surveys required by BLM work areas, overland Not applicable Canyon in Uintah to ground-disturbing 1 1 year July through August To be included in the Final POD (Phacelia argylensis) (Utah) Handbook 6840 travel, and new and County, Utah activities improved access routes Areas of modeled Surveys required by BLM potentially suitable Within 150 feet of Where required, prior Plant Survey Requirements and Beaver Rim phlox BLM- and state-sensitive 6840 handbook and BLM habitat; from work areas, overland May through June Not applicable to ground-disturbing 1 1 year Protocols from the Wyoming BLM, (Phlox pungens) species (Wyoming) Rawlins RMP Appendix 24 WYNDD model in travel, and new and (NatureServe 2012) activities Lander Field Office, 2014 (BLM 2008) Carbon County, improved access routes Wyoming Within 150 feet of Where required, prior Late April to June; Caespitose cat's-eye BLM-sensitive species Surveys required by BLM Duchesne County, work areas, overland Not applicable to ground-disturbing 1 1 year some flowers in early To be included in the Final POD (Cryptantha caespitosa) (Colorado) Handbook 6840 Utah travel, and access activities May to July routes Within modeled Within 150 feet of habitat identified in Follow protocol in U.S. Forest Service Canyon sweet-vetch Surveys required by USFS work areas, overland Where required, prior June to early August the USFS Biological Threatened, Endangered and Sensitive (Hedysarum occidentale var. USFS-sensitive species Biological Evaluation FSM Not applicable travel, and new and to ground-disturbing 1 1 year (Utah Native Plant Evaluation in Carbon, Plants Survey Field Guide (USFS canone) 2670 new and improved activities Society) Emery, and Duchesne 2005) access routes counties, Utah

Energy Gateway South Transmission Project Attachment A-7 Plan of Development Appendix B1 – Biological Resources Conservation Plan November 2016 Attachment A – Biological Resources Survey Requirements

TABLE 1 BIOLOGICAL SURVEY REQUIREMENTS FOR GEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATION Pre-survey Habitat Geographic Region Number of Assessment Where Surveys are Timing of Surveys in Years of Survey Survey Results Survey Window Resource Resource Status Survey Requirement Requirement Required Survey Area Relation to Project Required Valid For (approximate) Methodology Within modeled habitat identified in Within 150 feet of Follow protocol in U.S. Forest Service Surveys required by USFS Where required, prior Late June through Carrington daisy the USFS Biological work areas, overland Threatened, Endangered and Sensitive USFS-sensitive species Biological Evaluation and Not applicable to ground-disturbing 1 1 year mid-August (Utah (Erigeron carringtoniae) Evaluation in Emery travel, and new and Plants Survey Field Guide (USFS FSM 2670 activities Native Plant Society) and Sanpete counties, improved access routes 2005) Utah Areas of modeled Surveys required by BLM Within 150 feet of potentially suitable Where required, prior Plant Survey Requirements and Cedar Rim thistle BLM- and state-sensitive Handbook 6840 and BLM work areas, overland Not applicable habitat in Carbon and to ground-disturbing 1 1 year June through August Protocols from the Wyoming BLM (Cirsium aridum) species (Wyoming) Rawlins RMP Appendix 24 travel, and new and Sweetwater counties, activities Lander Field Office( 2014) (BLM 2008) improved access routes Wyoming Uintah and Duchesne Within 150 feet of Flowers April to early Where required, prior Debris milkvetch BLM-sensitive species Surveys required by BLM counties, Utah, and work areas, overland June; fruits from late Not applicable to ground-disturbing 1 1 year To be included in the Final POD (Astragalus detritalis) (Colorado) Handbook 6840 Moffat County, travel, and new and May through June activities Colorado improved access routes (NatureServe 2012) Uintah and Duchesne Within 150 feet of counties, Utah, and Where required, prior Late April through Duchesne milkvetch BLM-sensitive species Surveys required by BLM work areas, overland Not applicable Moffat and Rio to ground-disturbing 1 1 year June (NatureServe To be included in the Final POD (Astragalus duchesnensis) (Colorado) Handbook 6840 travel, and new and Blanco counties, activities 2012) improved access routes Colorado July through August in Predicted suitable Surveys required by BLM Within 150 feet of Wyoming BLM- and state-sensitive habitat in Sweetwater Where required, prior Plant Survey Requirements and Gibbens' beardtongue Handbook 6840 and BLM work areas, overland species (Wyoming, Not applicable and Carbon Counties, to ground-disturbing 1 1 year Protocols from the Wyoming BLM (Penstemon gibbensii) Rawlins RMP Appendix 24 travel, and new and Throughout the month Colorado, Utah) Wyoming, and Moffat activities Lander Field Office (2014) (BLM 2008) improved access routes of June in Colorado County, Colorado and Utah Within modeled On BLM-administered land, to be habitat identified in included in the Final POD; Surveys required by BLM the USFS Biological Within 150 feet of BLM-sensitive species Where required, prior on USFS-administered land, follow Goodrich's blazingstar Handbook 6840, USFS Evaluation on USFS- work areas, overland (Utah), USFS-sensitive Not applicable to ground-disturbing 1 1 year July through August protocol in U.S. Forest Service (Mentzelia goodrichii) Biological Evaluation, and and BLM- travel, and new and species activities Threatened, Endangered and Sensitive FSM 2670 administered lands in improved access routes Plants Survey Field Guide (USFS Duchesne County, 2005) Utah Within areas of potentially suitable habitat identified in FWS and BLM Per conservation agreement, follow Surveys required by BLM models, including protocol in FWS Utah Field Office Handbook 6840 and outcrops of the Within 300 feet of Where required, prior Guidelines for Conducting and Graham's beardtongue BLM-sensitive species Conservation Agreement and Parachute Creek work areas, overland Not applicable to ground-disturbing 1 1 year May through June Reporting Botanical Inventories and (Penstemon grahamii) (Colorado, Utah) Strategy for Graham’s member of the Green travel, and new and activities Monitoring of Federally Listed, Beardtongue and White River River formation in improved access routes Proposed and Candidate Plants (FWS Beardtongue (SWCA 2014) Duchesne and Uintah 2011) counties, Utah, and the Raven Ridge area of Rio Blanco County, Colorado

Energy Gateway South Transmission Project Attachment A-8 Plan of Development Appendix B1 – Biological Resources Conservation Plan November 2016 Attachment A – Biological Resources Survey Requirements

TABLE 1 BIOLOGICAL SURVEY REQUIREMENTS FOR GEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATION Pre-survey Habitat Geographic Region Number of Assessment Where Surveys are Timing of Surveys in Years of Survey Survey Results Survey Window Resource Resource Status Survey Requirement Requirement Required Survey Area Relation to Project Required Valid For (approximate) Methodology On BLM-administered land, Plant Within modeled Survey Requirements and Protocols habitat identified in from the Wyoming BLM Lander Field Surveys required by BLM the USFS Biological Within 150 feet of Office (2014) BLM-sensitive species Where required, prior Green River greenthread Handbook 6840, USFS Evaluation on USFS- work areas, overland (Wyoming, Utah), Not applicable to ground-disturbing 1 1 year May through June (Thelesperma caespitosum) Biological Evaluation, and and BLM- travel, and new and On USFS-administered land, follow USFS-sensitive species activities FSM 2670 administered lands in improved access routes protocol in U.S. Forest Service Duchesne County, Threatened, Endangered and Sensitive Utah Plants Survey Field Guide (USFS 2005) Within BLM suitable Within 300 feet of Where required, prior Horseshoe milkvetch BLM-sensitive species Surveys required by BLM habitat in the vicinity work areas, overland April through early Not applicable to ground-disturbing 1 1 year To be included in the Final POD (Astragalus equisolensis) (Colorado, Utah) Handbook 6840 of Horseshoe Bend in travel, and new and June activities Uintah County, Utah improved access routes Sandstone formations Within 150 feet of Where required, prior Huber's pepperwort BLM-sensitive species Surveys required by BLM in the Raven Ridge work areas, overland Not applicable to ground-disturbing 1 1 year June through August To be included in the Final POD (Lepidium huberi) (Utah) Handbook 6840 area in Uintah County, travel, and new and activities Utah improved access routes Areas of potentially Surveys required by BLM suitable habitat Within 150 feet of Where required, prior Plant Survey Requirements and Meadow pussytoes BLM- and state-sensitive Handbook 6840 and BLM identified in the work areas, overland July to September Not applicable to ground-disturbing 1 1 year Protocols from the Wyoming BLM (Antennaria arcuata) species (Wyoming) Rawlins RMP Appendix 24 WYNDD model in travel, and new and (NatureServe 2012) activities Lander Field Office (2014) (BLM 2008) Carbon County, improved access routes Wyoming Within 150 feet of Where required, prior Narrow-stem gilia BLM-sensitive species Surveys required by BLM Rio Blanco County, work areas, overland May through June Not applicable to ground-disturbing 1 1 year To be included in the Final POD (Gilia stenothyrsa) (Colorado) Handbook 6840 Colorado travel, and new and (NatureServe 2012) activities improved access routes Areas of potentially suitable habitat identified in the WYNDD model in Surveys required by BLM Carbon and Within 150 feet of Where required, prior Plant Survey Requirements and Ownbey's thistle BLM- and state-sensitive Handbook 6840 and BLM Sweetwater counties, work areas, overland Not applicable to ground-disturbing 1 1 year June and July Protocols from the Wyoming BLM (Cirsium ownbeyi) species (Wyoming) Rawlins RMP Appendix 24 Wyoming; areas of travel, and new and activities Lander Field Office (2014) (BLM 2008) potentially suitable improved access routes habitat in Rio Blanco and Moffat counties, Colorado; and Uintah County, Utah Areas of potentially suitable habitat Surveys required by BLM Within 150 feet of identified in the Where required, prior Plant Survey Requirements and Persistent-sepal yellowcress BLM- and state-sensitive Handbook 6840 and BLM work areas, overland June through August Not applicable WYNDD model in to ground-disturbing 1 1 year Protocols from the Wyoming BLM (Rorippa calycina) species (Wyoming) Rawlins RMP Appendix 24 travel, and new and (NatureServe 2012) Carbon and activities Lander Field Office (2014) (BLM 2008) improved access routes Sweetwater counties, Wyoming Within 150 feet of Within the Green Where required, prior Rollins' cat's-eye BLM-sensitive species Surveys required by BLM work areas, overland May and June Not applicable River Formation in to ground-disturbing 1 1 year To be included in the Final POD (Cryptantha rollinsii) (Colorado) Handbook 6840 travel, and new and (NatureServe 2012) Uintah County, Utah activities improved access routes Within 150 feet of Spanish bayonet Sandy soils within Where required, prior BLM-sensitive species Surveys required by BLM work areas, overland Anytime without snow (Yucca harrimaniae var. Not applicable Uintah and Duchesne to ground-disturbing 1 1 year To be included in the Final POD (Utah) Handbook 6840 travel, and access cover sterilis) counties, Utah activities routes

Energy Gateway South Transmission Project Attachment A-9 Plan of Development Appendix B1 – Biological Resources Conservation Plan November 2016 Attachment A – Biological Resources Survey Requirements

TABLE 1 BIOLOGICAL SURVEY REQUIREMENTS FOR GEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATION Pre-survey Habitat Geographic Region Number of Assessment Where Surveys are Timing of Surveys in Years of Survey Survey Results Survey Window Resource Resource Status Survey Requirement Requirement Required Survey Area Relation to Project Required Valid For (approximate) Methodology Within modeled On BLM-administered land, to be Surveys required by BLM habitat identified in Within 150 feet of included in the Final POD; on USFS- BLM-sensitive species Where required, prior Untermann's daisy Handbook 6840, USFS the USFS Biological work areas, overland administered land, follow protocol in (Utah), USFS-sensitive Not applicable to ground-disturbing 1 1 year May through July (Erigeron untermannii) Biological Evaluation, and Evaluation in travel, and new and U.S. Forest Service Threatened, species activities FSM 2670 Duchesne County, improved access routes Endangered and Sensitive Plants Utah Survey Field Guide (USFS 2005) Within areas of potentially suitable habitat identified in Per conservation agreement, follow Surveys required by BLM the BLM models, protocol in FWS Utah Field Office Handbook 6840 and including outcrops of Within 300 feet of White River beardtongue Where required, prior Guidelines for Conducting and BLM-sensitive species Conservation Agreement and the Parachute Creek work areas, overland (Penstemon scariosus var. Not applicable to ground-disturbing 1 1 year May through June Reporting Botanical Inventories and (Utah) Strategy for Graham’s member of the Green travel, and new and albifluvis) activities Monitoring of Federally Listed, Beardtongue and White River River formation in improved access routes Proposed and Candidate Plants (FWS Beardtongue (SWCA 2014) Uintah County, Utah, 2011) and western Rio Blanco County, Colorado SOURCES: Beauvais, G.P. 2003. Field Surveys for Mountain Plovers in the Rawlins Field Office Region. Wyoming Natural Diversity Database. University of Wyoming. Laramie, Wyoming. Beauvais, G.P., and R. Smith. 2003. Model of breeding habitat of the mountain plover (Charadrius montanus) in western Wyoming. Western North American Naturalist 63(1): 88-96. Bureau of Land Management (BLM). 2008. Record of Decision and Approved Rawlins Resource Management Plan. Rawlins Field Office, Rawlins, Wyoming. BLM. 2011. Wildlife Survey Protocols, Version 2.3. Pinedale Field Office, Wyoming. BLM. 2014. Plant Survey Requirements and Protocols. Lander Field Office, Wyoming. Call, M.W. 1978. Nesting habitats and surveys techniques for common western raptors. U.S.E.I., Bureau of Land Management, Technical Note TN-316. 115pp. NatureServe. 2012. NatureServe Explorer: An online encyclopedia of life [web application]. Version 7.1. Arlington, Virginia. Available at: http://www.natureserve.org/explorer, accessed November 30, 2012. Romin, L.A,. and J.A. Muck. 2002. Utah Field Office Guidelines for Raptor Protection from Human and Land Use Disturbances. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Utah Ecological Services, West Valley City. SWCA. 2014. Conservation Agreement and Strategy for Graham’s Beardtongue (Penstemon grahamii) and White River Beardtongue (P. scariosus var. albifluvis). Prepared for State of Utah School and Institutional Trust Lands Administration; Uintah County, Utah; Utah Public Lands Policy Coordination Office; Utah Division of Wildlife Resources; Rio Blanco County, Colorado; Bureau of Land Management; and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. Ulmschneider, H. 2004. Surveying for pygmy rabbits (Brachylagus idahoensis). Interagency Pygmy Rabbit Working Group. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS). 1992. Interim Survey Requirements for Ute ladies’-tresses Orchid. FWS. 2011. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Utah Field Office Guidelines for Conducting and Reporting Botanical Inventories and Monitoring of Federally Listed, Proposed and Candidate Plants. Utah Division of Wildlife Resources. 2005. Boreal Toad (Bufo boreas boreas) Conservation Plan in the State of Utah. Publication 05-37. Salt Lake City, Utah. U.S. Forest Service (USFS). 2005. Threatened, Endangered and Sensitive Plants Survey Field Guide. Washington, D.C. Utah Native Plant Society Database. Wyoming Natural Diversity Database. NOTES:

BA = FWS Biological Assessment ESA = Endangered Species Act of 1973 NTP = Notice to Proceed USFS = U.S. Forest Service BLM = Bureau of Land Management FSM = Forest Service Manual POD = Plan of Development WYNDD = Wyoming Natural Diversity Database EIS = Environmental Impact Statement FWS = U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service RMP =Resource Management Plans

Energy Gateway South Transmission Project Attachment A-10 Plan of Development Appendix B1 – Biological Resources Conservation Plan November 2016 Attachment A – Biological Resources Survey Requirements

Formal delineations of wetlands and waters of the U.S. are not anticipated to be conducted for the geotechnical investigation, as the Company has committed to complete avoidance of these resources. Any potential wetlands and waters of the U.S. located during surveys will be recorded and documented in survey results reports prior to coordination with the relevant agencies. The Company, in coordination with relevant agencies, will employ one or more of the decision criteria or mitigation actions included in the Geotechnical Investigation POD to avoid impacting potential wetlands and waters of the U.S. In the unlikely event that the Company identifies a need to conduct geotechnical investigations that could affect potential wetlands or waters of the U.S., a formal delineation would be conducted prior to initiating coordination with USACE, and the permitting process would be initiated.

A1.4.2 Special Status Wildlife The requirements for conducting special status wildlife surveys for the geotechnical investigation were developed based on an understanding of the timeframe in which special status wildlife surveys must be conducted relative to the geotechnical activities and the anticipated flexibility in the geotechnical investigation schedule based on decision criteria included in the Geotechnical Investigation POD. A list of special status wildlife for which surveys must be conducted, the agency-approved survey methodology, needs for pre-survey habitat assessments (if applicable), and the temporal and spatial extent of each survey for the geotechnical investigation is included in Table 1. Changes to the Company’s plan for implementing the geotechnical investigation (e.g., the need to conduct activities inside of certain seasonal restrictions) could result in additional survey requirements for the geotechnical investigation.

A1.4.2.1 Seven-day Clearance Surveys The majority of geotechnical investigation activities are likely to take place during the migratory bird and raptor nesting seasons. Pedestrian migratory bird nest clearances and raptor nest surveys will be required within 7 days of all geotechnical activities during the nesting season. Surveys for other species required to be completed for the geotechnical investigation may also be conducted during the seven-day clearance surveys, if approved by BLM or relevant agencies. Details of the seven-day plan are outlined below:

A team of biological monitors will conduct migratory bird and raptor nest surveys for each borehole location, overland travel route, and new or improved access roads. The purpose of the surveys is to identify migratory bird and raptor nests and document terrestrial wildlife that may require avoidance or monitoring based on the measures included in the POD. The timeliness of the surveys, in comparison to the drilling schedule, will help identify any resource changes that may have occurred if the geotechnical site was previously visited. Surveys will be conducted within seven days prior to geotechnical exploration activities to allow for appropriate coordination between the Company, appropriate agencies, and biological monitors. Effective and efficient communication between the Company, the BLM, relevant agencies, the drilling contractor, and the biological monitors is crucial. The biological monitors will communicate with the appropriate parties via email and telephone on a daily basis to avoid delays in the geotechnical exploration schedule. Important information to be communicated between the parties includes:

 The geotechnical exploration schedule for the next 10 days (to be provided by drilling contractor).

 Environmental monitoring needs at geotechnical sites to be drilled in the next 10 days (surveyors can also serve as environmental monitors). Environmental monitoring needs will be identified in the Geotechnical POD.

 Schedule for migratory bird and raptor nest surveys for boreholes to be drilled in next 10 days.

Energy Gateway South Transmission Project Attachment A-11 Plan of Development Appendix B1 – Biological Resources Conservation Plan November 2016 Attachment A – Biological Resources Survey Requirements

 Results of migratory bird and raptor nest surveys and need for modification of the anticipated geotechnical exploration schedule based on environmental constraints identified.

 Observations regarding any resource changes that may have occurred if the geotechnical site was previously visited. To facilitate this communication, the biological monitors will provide daily updates, including the results of surveys to all parties using a standard email template. The email template will include:

 A survey schedule detailing anticipated survey dates for geotechnical sites and access roads for the next 10 days of drilling activities.

 Survey findings, including:  Dates surveys were conducted  Nests encountered, approximate distance from borehole location, observed nest status, species (if active), and any associated restrictions from the POD (detailed nest locations to be provided in final summary report)  Management recommendations for any nest encountered  Observations of special status terrestrial wildlife

If an active nest or special status terrestrial wildlife are observed, the biological monitor will coordinate with the appropriate agencies and make recommendations based on the restrictions outlined in the Migratory Bird Nest Management Plan and Biological Resources Monitoring Plan contained in the POD. It is anticipated that the recommendation for active nests will be to avoid geotechnical activities within the distance specified in the appropriate POD plan. The daily email notification would serve as the notification of the survey finding and management recommendation for the BLM, Company, and the drilling contractor. BLM concurrence would not be required if variances from the management recommendations in the POD are not anticipated. In the event that a variance from the management recommendation for active nests in the POD is desired by the drilling contractor, the Variance Process outlined in the Adaptive Wildlife Management Plan contained in the POD would apply. BLM concurrence would be required to approve any variance requests.

A1.5 Transmission Line Construction The approach to, timing of, and requirements for surveys required for the construction of the transmission line are driven by:

 The anticipated level of impact associated with transmission line construction;  The need to have sensitive resources identified and design modifications implemented to avoid these resources before construction starts; and  The Company’s need to understand the restrictions and mitigation actions associated with sensitive resources prior to initiation of construction activities.

Information gathered during surveys addressed in this plan will inform mitigation necessary for the final engineering and design of the transmission line. Mitigation will be identified and documented in the POD, which must be approved prior to the initiation of construction activities. Additionally, survey results will inform construction monitoring needs, which will be documented in the Final Biological Resources Monitoring Plan to be included in the POD. A list of special status plants and wildlife for which surveys must be conducted, the need for any pre-survey habitat assessments, and the agency-approved survey methodology and the temporal and spatial extent of each survey for the transmission line construction is included in Table 2.

Energy Gateway South Transmission Project Attachment A-12 Plan of Development Appendix B1 – Biological Resources Conservation Plan November 2016 Attachment A – Biological Resources Survey Requirements

TABLE 2 BIOLOGICAL SURVEY REQUIREMENTS FOR TRANSMISSION LINE CONSTRUCTION Pre-survey Habitat Geographic Region Timing of Surveys Number of Years Assessment Where Surveys are in Relation to of Survey Survey Results Valid Survey Window Resource Resource Status Survey Requirement Requirement Required Survey Area Project Required For (approximate) Methodology Wildlife Listed Under the Endangered Species Act Based on conservation Federally measures included in the BA, endangered/ black-footed ferret occupancy Black-footed ferret experimental will be assumed in all Not applicable Not applicable Not applicable Not applicable Not applicable Not applicable Not applicable Not applicable (Mustela nigripes) nonessential reintroduction areas known to population be occupied by black-footed ferrets Within 0.5 mile of work An additional year of Within 0.5 mile of areas, new and improved Surveys will be surveying is suitable habitat Pedestrian (presence/absence) Mexican spotted owl Required based on Required; refer to access routes, and the 250- conducted for 2 recommended if more identified via habitat Prior to completion surveys according to the Mexican (Strix occidentalis Federally threatened conservation measures conservation measures foot-wide right-of-way years prior to than 5 years have elapsed March through June assessment. Generally of POD and NTP Spotted Owl Survey Protocol (FWS lucida) included in the BA in Section B1.4 along the route selected for construction between the last survey in the Argyle Canyon 2012) the construction of the activities year and the initiation of area of Utah transmission line the proposed action Within 0.5 mile of work Within 0.5 mile of areas, new and improved A Natural History Summary and Yellow-billed Required based on Required; refer to suitable habitat access routes, and the 250- Survey Protocol for the Western cuckoo Prior to completion To be included in the Federally threatened conservation measures conservation measures identified via pre- foot-wide right-of-way 1 June through August Distinct Population Segment of the (Coccyzus of POD and NTP Final POD included in the BA in Section B1.4 survey habitat along the route selected for Yellow-billed Cuckoo (Halterman et americanus) assessment the construction of the al. 2015) transmission line Bureau of Land Management and U.S. Forest Service Sensitive Wildlife Surveys required to identify active and inactive nests along the route selected for the construction of the Protected by the transmission line (Migratory Within 1.0, 0.75, 0.5, or Migratory Bird Bird Treaty Act, Utah BLM 0.25 mile (depending on During the Within appropriate Treaty Act and the guidance on nesting raptors, the appropriate BLM/FWS appropriate Helicopter surveys according to spatial buffers along the Bald and Golden Executive Order 13186, BLM field office spatial buffers Prior to completion Same breeding season BLM/FWS field Nesting Habitats and Surveying Raptor nests Not applicable route selected for 1 Eagle Protection Act. Instruction Memorandum No. for each raptor species) of POD and NTP surveys are conducted office seasonal Techniques for Common Western construction of the Many are USFS- and 2006-096 – Utah around work areas, buffers for each Raptors (Call 1978) transmission line BLM-sensitive Supplemental Planning overland travel, and new raptor species species Guidance: Raptor Best and improved access routes Management Practices, USFS Land Resource Management Plan Amendment – Utah Northern Goshawk Project) Surveys required to identify active bald eagle winter roosts and/or concentration areas along the route selected for Within 0.25, 1.0, or 2.0 Communal winter the construction of the Bald eagle winter Protected by the miles (depending on the roosts November 1 transmission line (Migratory Riparian areas along and communal roost Migratory Bird appropriate BLM/FWS through April 1 Bird Treaty Act, Utah BLM major rivers and large Prior to completion areas Treaty Act and Bald Not applicable field office spatial buffers) 1 1 year To be included in the Final POD guidance on nesting raptors, cottonwood/conifer of POD and NTP (Haliaeetus and Golden Eagle of work areas, overland Concentration areas Executive Order 13186, BLM stands leucocephalus) Protection Act travel, and new and February 1 through Instruction Memorandum No. improved access routes August 15 2006-096 – Utah Supplemental Planning Guidance: Raptor Best Management Practices)

Energy Gateway South Transmission Project Attachment A-13 Plan of Development Appendix B1 – Biological Resources Conservation Plan November 2016 Attachment A – Biological Resources Survey Requirements

TABLE 2 BIOLOGICAL SURVEY REQUIREMENTS FOR TRANSMISSION LINE CONSTRUCTION Pre-survey Habitat Geographic Region Timing of Surveys Number of Years Assessment Where Surveys are in Relation to of Survey Survey Results Valid Survey Window Resource Resource Status Survey Requirement Requirement Required Survey Area Project Required For (approximate) Methodology Species petitioned for Construction sites listing under the above 7,000 feet, east Within 100 meters of work Pedestrian surveys according to ESA; BLM- and of Soldier Summit and Survey potential Breeding season areas, overland travel, and Boreal Toad Conservation Plan in state-sensitive Adhere to seasonal adjacent to Kyune and habitats if April through July new and improved access the State Of Utah (Utah Division of Boreal toad species; protected by restrictions to avoid the need the Utah construction Not applicable routes. Surveys will extend Not applicable 1 year Wildlife Resources 2005) and (Bufo boreas boreas) Utah Boreal Toad for surveys (refer to County/Carbon County activities occur Migration season to 300 meters in areas Breeding site surveys and visual Conservation Plan Attachment G) line where activities during breeding and (August through where suitable habitat is encounter surveys (Crump and Scott 2005; USFS- would occur during the migration seasons September) found. 1994) sensitive species breeding or migration region 4 seasons Occupied greater sage- Lek surveys required in sage- grouse habitat within 4 Suitable habitat along Candidate species for grouse habitat within 4 miles miles of the route selected During applicable the route selected for Greater sage-grouse listing under the ESA. of route selected for for the construction of the agency-identified construction using leks BLM- sensitive construction of the transmission line (including Prior to completion To be included in the seasons Not applicable protocols approved by 1 (Centrocercus species, USFS- transmission line for any construction areas of POD and NTP Final POD (approximately the BLM, USFS, or urophasianus) sensitive species, completion of POD (BLM outside the right-of-way March 15 through other cooperating state-sensitive species Handbook 6840 and USFS subject to human activity May 1) agencies. 2760) and increased equipment traffic) Within 300 feet of the edge Pedestrian (presence/absence) May 1 through June of work areas, new and surveys following the protocols 15 in Colorado and FWS species of improved access routes, identified in Field Surveys for Mountain plover Surveys required by BLM Areas of potentially Utah concern; BLM- and and the 250-foot-wide Prior to completion Mountain Plovers (Beauvais 2003) (Charadrius Handbook 6840 and BLM Not applicable suitable habitat 1 1 year state-sensitive species right-of-way along the of POD and NTP and in Model of breeding habitat of montanus) Rawlins RMP (BLM 2008) identified in EIS Survey April 10 (Wyoming) route selected for the the mountain plover (Charadrius through July 10 in construction of the montanus) in western Wyoming Wyoming transmission line (Beauvais and Smith 2003) BLM- and state- Within 0.25 mile of work Surveys can be Pedestrian (presence/absence) Pygmy rabbit Surveys required by BLM Areas of potentially sensitive species, areas, overland travel, and Prior to completion To be included in the conducted any time surveys according to the protocols (Brachylagus Handbook 6840 and BLM Not applicable suitable habitat 1 FWS species of new and improved access of POD and NTP Final POD of year. Late summer identified in Surveying for Pygmy idahoensis) Rawlins RMP (BLM 2008) identified in EIS concern routes surveys preferred Rabbits (Ulmschneider et al. 2004) Within 660 feet of work areas, new and improved Pedestrian (presence/absence) BLM- and state- White-tailed prairie Surveys required by BLM Areas of potentially access routes, and the 250- surveys according to the protocols sensitive species, Prior to completion To be included in the April 1 through dog Handbook 6840 and BLM Not applicable suitable habitat foot-wide right-of-way 1 identified in Wildlife Survey FWS species of of POD and NTP Final POD September 30 (Cynomys leucurus) Rawlins RMP (BLM 2008) identified in EIS along the route selected for Protocols Pinedale Field Office concern the construction of the (BLM 2011) transmission line Pedestrian surveys to identify Within 246 feet (75 meters) potential Wyoming pocket gopher Surveys required by BLM of work areas, overland BLM- and state- Within areas of colonies and, if required, Wyoming pocket Handbook 6840 and BLM travel, and new and sensitive species, potentially suitable Prior to completion To be included in the April 1 through classification surveys (via live gopher Rawlins RMP (BLM 2008) Not applicable improved access routes 1 FWS species of habitat identified in the of POD and NTP Final POD September 30 capture) according to the protocols (Thomomys clusius) and 2015 Rawlins RMP near areas of potentially concern WYNDD model identified in Pocket Gopher Surveys Maintenance Action suitable habitat identified in in Southwestern Wyoming the WYNDD model (WYNDD)

Energy Gateway South Transmission Project Attachment A-14 Plan of Development Appendix B1 – Biological Resources Conservation Plan November 2016 Attachment A – Biological Resources Survey Requirements

TABLE 2 BIOLOGICAL SURVEY REQUIREMENTS FOR TRANSMISSION LINE CONSTRUCTION Pre-survey Habitat Geographic Region Timing of Surveys Number of Years Assessment Where Surveys are in Relation to of Survey Survey Results Valid Survey Window Resource Resource Status Survey Requirement Requirement Required Survey Area Project Required For (approximate) Methodology Plants Listed Under the Endangered Species Act Suitable habitat (identified by USFS and FWS for EIS Habitat assessment analysis) within 650 feet of prior to final Follow protocol in FWS Utah Field Required. Within suitable habitat the edge of work areas, new engineering and Office Guidelines for Conducting Clay phacelia Surveys required based on Listed as endangered Refer to conservation identified via pre- and improved access design Throughout the and Reporting Botanical Inventories (Phacelia conservation measures 1 1 year under the ESA measures in Section survey habitat routes, and the 250-foot- month of June and Monitoring of Federally Listed, argillacea) included in the BA B1.4 assessment wide right-of-way along the Survey prior to Proposed and Candidate Plants route selected for the completion of POD (FWS 2011) construction of the and NTP transmission line Within 300 feet of the edge of work areas, new and Follow protocol in FWS Utah Field Required. improved access routes, Office Guidelines for Conducting Clay reed-mustard Surveys required based on Within suitable habitat Listed as threatened Refer to conservation and the 250-foot-wide Prior to completion May through early and Reporting Botanical Inventories (Schoenocrambe conservation measures identified via habitat 1 1 year under the ESA measures in Section right-of-way along the of POD and NTP June and Monitoring of Federally Listed, argillacea) included in the BA assessment B1.4 route selected for the Proposed and Candidate Plants construction of the (FWS 2011) transmission line Within 300 feet of the edge of work areas, new and improved access routes, Follow protocol in FWS Utah Field Desktop analysis Within suitable habitat and the 250-foot-wide Office Guidelines for Conducting Deseret milkvetch Surveys required based on Listed as threatened required. Refer to identified via desktop right-of-way along the Prior to completion and Reporting Botanical Inventories (Astragalus conservation measures 1 1 year May through June under the ESA conservation measures analysis. Generally near route selected for the of POD and NTP and Monitoring of Federally Listed, desereticus) included in the BA in Section B1.4 Thistle Creek, Utah construction of the Proposed and Candidate Plants transmission line. Survey (FWS 2011) area may be adjusted based on topography. Within 300 feet of the edge Within FWS mapped of work areas, new and Follow protocol in FWS Utah Field Shrubby reed- suitable habitat near the improved access routes, Office Guidelines for Conducting Surveys required based on mustard Listed as endangered Badland Cliffs and the 250-foot-wide Prior to completion Mid-April to early and Reporting Botanical Inventories conservation measures Not applicable 1 1 year (Schoenocrambe under the ESA population (i.e., right-of-way along the of POD and NTP August and Monitoring of Federally Listed, included in the BA suffrutescens) Wrinkles Road) in route selected for the Proposed and Candidate Plants Duchesne County, Utah construction of the (FWS 2011) transmission line Within 300 feet of the edge of work areas, new and Follow Project-specific survey Uinta Basin hookless improved access routes, Surveys required based on protocols developed during Section cactus Listed as threatened Within habitat polygons and the 250-foot-wide Prior to completion To be included in the Anytime without conservation measures Not applicable 1 7 consultation. Refer to (Sclerocactus under the ESA provided by FWS right-of-way along the of POD and NTP Final POD snow cover included in the BA conservation measures in Section wetlandicus) route selected for the B1.4 construction of the transmission line Within 300 feet of the edge Potentially suitable habitat of work areas, new and assessments, including field Three consecutive Required. improved access routes, Survey techniques described in Ute ladies'-tresses verification, will be Within suitable habitat years of surveys Listed as threatened Refer to conservation and the 250-foot-wide Prior to completion Throughout the Interim Survey Requirements for (Spiranthes completed prior to surveys identified via habitat required prior to 1 year under the ESA measures in Section right-of-way along the of POD and NTP month of August Ute ladies’-tresses Orchid (FWS diluvialis) required based on assessment any permanent B1.4 route selected for the 1992) conservation measures disturbance construction of the included in the BA transmission line

Energy Gateway South Transmission Project Attachment A-15 Plan of Development Appendix B1 – Biological Resources Conservation Plan November 2016 Attachment A – Biological Resources Survey Requirements

TABLE 2 BIOLOGICAL SURVEY REQUIREMENTS FOR TRANSMISSION LINE CONSTRUCTION Pre-survey Habitat Geographic Region Timing of Surveys Number of Years Assessment Where Surveys are in Relation to of Survey Survey Results Valid Survey Window Resource Resource Status Survey Requirement Requirement Required Survey Area Project Required For (approximate) Methodology Bureau of Land Management and U.S. Forest Service Sensitive Plants Within 150 feet of the edge of work areas, new and Argyle Canyon improved access routes, Vicinity of Argyle phacelia BLM-sensitive Surveys required by BLM and the 250-foot-wide Prior to completion Not applicable Canyon in Uintah 1 1 year July through August To be included in the Final POD (Phacelia species (Utah) Handbook 6840 right-of-way along the of POD and NTP County, Utah argylensis) route selected for the construction of the transmission line Within 150 feet of the edge Areas of modeled of work areas, new and Surveys required by BLM potentially suitable improved access routes, BLM- and state- Handbook 6840 and BLM Plant Survey Requirements and Beaver Rim phlox habitat (from the and the 250-foot-wide Prior to completion May through June sensitive species Rawlins Resource Not applicable 1 1 year Protocols from the Wyoming BLM (Phlox pungens) WYNDD Model) in right-of-way along the of POD and NTP (NatureServe 2012) (Wyoming) Management Plan (RMP) Lander Field Office (2014) Carbon County, route selected for the Appendix 24 (BLM 2008) Wyoming construction of the transmission line Within 150 feet of the edge of work areas, new and improved access routes, Caespitose cat's-eye Late April to June; BLM-sensitive Surveys required by BLM and the 250-foot-wide Prior to completion (Cryptantha Not applicable Duchesne County, Utah 1 1 year some flowers in early To be included in the Final POD species (Colorado) Handbook 6840 right-of-way along the of POD and NTP caespitosa) May to July route selected for the construction of the transmission line Within 150 feet of the edge Within modeled habitat of work areas, new and Canyon sweet-vetch identified in the USFS improved access routes, Follow protocol in U.S. Forest Surveys required by USFS June through early (Hedysarum USFS-sensitive Biological Evaluation and the 250-foot-wide Prior to completion Service Threatened, Endangered Biological Evaluation and Not applicable 1 1 year August (Utah Native occidentale var. species in Carbon, Emery, and right-of-way along the of POD and NTP and Sensitive Plants Survey Field FSM 2670 Plant Society) canone) Duchesne counties, route selected for the Guide (USFS 2005) Utah construction of the transmission line Within 150 feet of the edge of work areas, new and Within modeled habitat improved access routes, Follow protocol in U.S. Forest Carrington daisy Surveys required by USFS identified in the USFS Late June through USFS-sensitive and the 250-foot-wide Prior to completion Service Threatened, Endangered (Erigeron Biological Evaluation and Not applicable Biological Evaluation 1 1 year mid-August (Utah species right-of-way along the of POD and NTP and Sensitive Plants Survey Field carringtoniae) FSM 2670 in Emery and Sanpete Native Plant Society) route selected for the Guide (USFS 2005) counties, Utah construction of the transmission line Within 150 feet of the edge of work areas, new and Areas of modeled Surveys required by BLM improved access routes, BLM- and state- potentially suitable Plant Survey Requirements and Cedar Rim thistle Handbook 6840 and BLM and the 250-foot-wide Prior to completion sensitive species Not applicable habitat in Carbon and 1 1 year June through August Protocols from the Wyoming BLM (Cirsium aridum) Rawlins RMP Appendix 24 right-of-way along the of POD and NTP (Wyoming) Sweetwater counties, (2014) (BLM 2008) route selected for the Wyoming construction of the transmission line

Energy Gateway South Transmission Project Attachment A-16 Plan of Development Appendix B1 – Biological Resources Conservation Plan November 2016 Attachment A – Biological Resources Survey Requirements

TABLE 2 BIOLOGICAL SURVEY REQUIREMENTS FOR TRANSMISSION LINE CONSTRUCTION Pre-survey Habitat Geographic Region Timing of Surveys Number of Years Assessment Where Surveys are in Relation to of Survey Survey Results Valid Survey Window Resource Resource Status Survey Requirement Requirement Required Survey Area Project Required For (approximate) Methodology Within 150 feet of the edge of work areas, new and Flowers April to Uintah and Duchesne improved access routes, Debris milkvetch early June; fruits BLM-sensitive Surveys required by BLM counties, Utah, and and the 250-foot-wide Prior to completion (Astragalus Not applicable 1 1 year from late May To be included in the Final POD species (Colorado) Handbook 6840 Moffat County, right-of-way along the of POD and NTP detritalis) through June Colorado route selected for the (NatureServe 2012) construction of the transmission line Within 150 feet of the edge of work areas, new and Uintah and Duchesne improved access routes, Duchesne milkvetch Late April through BLM-sensitive Surveys required by BLM counties, Utah, and and the 250-foot-wide Prior to completion (Astragalus Not applicable 1 1 year June (NatureServe To be included in the Final POD species (Colorado) Handbook 6840 Moffat and Rio Blanco right-of-way along the of POD and NTP duchesnensis) 2012) counties, Colorado route selected for the construction of the transmission line Predicted suitable Within 150 feet of the edge habitat near the of work areas, new and July through August Gibbens' BLM- and state- Surveys required by BLM Colorado-Utah border; improved access routes, in Wyoming Plant Survey Requirements and beardtongue sensitive species Handbook 6840 and BLM survey areas include and the 250-foot-wide Prior to completion Not applicable 1 1 year Protocols from the Wyoming BLM (Penstemon (Wyoming, Colorado, Rawlins RMP Appendix 24 Sweetwater and Carbon right-of-way along the of POD and NTP Throughout the Lander Field Office (2014) gibbensii) Utah) (BLM 2008) counties, Wyoming, route selected for the month of June in and Moffat County, construction of the Colorado and Utah Colorado transmission line Within 150 feet of the edge On BLM-administered land, to be Within modeled habitat of work areas, new and included in the Final POD; on Goodrich's BLM-sensitive Surveys required by BLM identified in the USFS improved access routes, USFS-administered land, follow blazingstar species (Utah), Handbook 6840, USFS Biological Evaluation and the 250-foot-wide Prior to completion Not applicable 1 1 year July through August protocol in U.S. Forest Service (Mentzelia USFS-sensitive Biological Evaluation and on USFS- and BLM- right-of-way along the of POD and NTP Threatened, Endangered and goodrichii) species FSM 2670 administered lands in route selected for the Sensitive Plants Survey Field Guide Duchesne County, Utah construction of the (USFS 2005) transmission line Within areas of potentially suitable habitat identified in Within 300 feet of the edge FWS and BLM models, Per conservation agreement, follow Surveys required by BLM of work areas, new and including outcrops of protocol in FWS Utah Field Office Graham's Handbook 6840 and improved access routes, BLM-sensitive the Parachute Creek Guidelines for Conducting and beardtongue Conservation Agreement and and the 250-foot-wide Prior to completion species (Colorado, Not applicable member of the Green 1 1 year May through June Reporting Botanical Inventories and (Penstemon Strategy for Graham’s right-of-way along the of POD and NTP Utah) River formation in Monitoring of Federally Listed, grahamii) Beardtongue and White River route selected for the Duchesne and Uintah Proposed and Candidate Plants Beardtongue (SWCA 2014) construction of the counties, Utah, and the (FWS 2011) transmission line Raven Ridge area of Rio Blanco County, Colorado Within 150 feet of the edge On BLM-administered land, Plant Within modeled habitat of work areas, new and Survey Requirements and Protocols Surveys required by BLM Green River BLM-sensitive identified in the USFS improved access routes, from the Wyoming BLM Lander Handbook 6840, BLM greenthread species (Wyoming, Biological Evaluation and the 250-foot-wide Prior to completion Field Office (2014); on USFS- Rawlins RMP (BLM 2008), Not applicable 1 1 year May through June (Thelesperma Utah), USFS- on USFS- and BLM- right-of-way along the of POD and NTP administered land, follow protocol USFS Biological Evaluation, caespitosum) sensitive species administered lands in route selected for the in U.S. Forest Service Threatened, and FSM 2670 Duchesne County, Utah construction of the Endangered and Sensitive Plants transmission line Survey Field Guide (USFS 2005) Horseshoe milkvetch BLM-sensitive Surveys required by BLM Within BLM suitable Within 300 feet of the edge Prior to completion April through early Not applicable 1 1 year To be included in the Final POD (Astragalus species (Colorado, Handbook 6840 habitat in the vicinity of of work areas, new and of POD and NTP June

Energy Gateway South Transmission Project Attachment A-17 Plan of Development Appendix B1 – Biological Resources Conservation Plan November 2016 Attachment A – Biological Resources Survey Requirements

TABLE 2 BIOLOGICAL SURVEY REQUIREMENTS FOR TRANSMISSION LINE CONSTRUCTION Pre-survey Habitat Geographic Region Timing of Surveys Number of Years Assessment Where Surveys are in Relation to of Survey Survey Results Valid Survey Window Resource Resource Status Survey Requirement Requirement Required Survey Area Project Required For (approximate) Methodology equisolensis) Utah) Horseshoe Bend in improved access routes, Uintah County, Utah and the 250-foot-wide right-of-way along the route selected for the construction of the transmission line Within 150 feet of the edge of work areas, new and improved access routes, Sandstone formations in Huber's pepperwort BLM-sensitive Surveys as required by BLM and the 250-foot-wide Prior to completion Not applicable the Raven Ridge area in 1 1 year June through August To be included in the Final POD (Lepidium huberi) species (Utah) Handbook 6840 right-of-way along the of POD and NTP Uintah County, Utah route selected for the construction of the transmission line Within 150 feet of the edge Areas of potentially of work areas, new and Surveys as required by BLM suitable habitat improved access routes, BLM- and state- Plant Survey Requirements and Meadow pussytoes Handbook 6840 and BLM identified in the and the 250-foot-wide Prior to completion July to September sensitive species Not applicable 1 1 year Protocols from the Wyoming BLM (Antennaria arcuata) Rawlins RMP Appendix 24 WYNDD model in right-of-way along the of POD and NTP (NatureServe 2012) (Wyoming) Lander Field Office (2014) (BLM 2008) Carbon County, route selected for the Wyoming construction of the transmission line Within 150 feet of the edge of work areas, new and improved access routes, Narrow-stem gilia BLM-sensitive Surveys as required by BLM Rio Blanco County, and the 250-foot-wide Prior to completion May through June Not applicable 1 1 year To be included in the Final POD (Gilia stenothyrsa) species (Colorado) Handbook 6840 Colorado right-of-way along the of POD and NTP (NatureServe 2012) route selected for the construction of the transmission line Areas of potentially suitable habitat Within 150 feet of the edge identified in the of work areas, new and WYNDD model in Surveys as required by BLM improved access routes, BLM- and state- Carbon and Sweetwater Plant Survey Requirements and Ownbey's thistle Handbook 6840 and BLM and the 250-foot-wide Prior to completion sensitive species Not applicable counties Wyoming; and 1 1 year June through July Protocols from the Wyoming BLM (Cirsium ownbeyi) Rawlins RMP Appendix 24 right-of-way along the of POD and NTP (Wyoming) areas of potentially Lander Field Office (2014) (BLM 2008) route selected for the suitable habitat in Rio construction of the Blanco and Moffat transmission line counties, Colorado, and Uintah County, Utah Within 150 feet of the edge Areas of potentially of work areas, new and Surveys as required by BLM suitable habitat improved access routes, Persistent-sepal BLM- and state- Plant Survey Requirements and Handbook 6840 and BLM identified in the and the 250-foot-wide Prior to completion June through August yellowcress sensitive species Not applicable 1 1 year Protocols from the Wyoming BLM Rawlins RMP Appendix 24 WYNDD model in right-of-way along the of POD and NTP (NatureServe 2012) (Rorippa calycina) (Wyoming) Lander Field Office (2014) (BLM 2008) Carbon and Sweetwater route selected for the counties, Wyoming construction of the transmission line Within 150 feet of the edge of work areas, new and Rollins' cat's-eye Within the Green River BLM-sensitive Surveys as required by BLM improved access routes, Prior to completion May through June (Cryptantha Not applicable Formation in Uintah 1 1 year To be included in the Final POD species (Colorado) Handbook 6840 and the 250-foot-wide of POD and NTP (NatureServe 2012) rollinsii) County, Utah right-of-way along the route selected for the

Energy Gateway South Transmission Project Attachment A-18 Plan of Development Appendix B1 – Biological Resources Conservation Plan November 2016 Attachment A – Biological Resources Survey Requirements

TABLE 2 BIOLOGICAL SURVEY REQUIREMENTS FOR TRANSMISSION LINE CONSTRUCTION Pre-survey Habitat Geographic Region Timing of Surveys Number of Years Assessment Where Surveys are in Relation to of Survey Survey Results Valid Survey Window Resource Resource Status Survey Requirement Requirement Required Survey Area Project Required For (approximate) Methodology construction of the transmission line Within 150 feet of the edge of work areas, new and Sandy soils within the improved access routes, Spanish bayonet BLM-sensitive Surveys as required by BLM Uinta Basin in and the 250-foot-wide Prior to completion Anytime without (Yucca harrimaniae Not applicable 1 1 year To be included in the Final POD species (Utah) Handbook 6840 Duchesne and Uintah right-of-way along the of POD and NTP snow cover var. sterilis) counties, Utah route selected for the construction of the transmission line Within 150 feet of the edge On BLM-administered land, to be of work areas, new and Within modeled habitat included in the Final POD; on BLM-sensitive Surveys as required by BLM improved access routes, Untermann's daisy identified in the USFS USFS-administered land, follow species (Utah), Handbook 6840 and USFS and the 250-foot-wide Prior to completion (Erigeron Not applicable Biological Evaluation 1 1 year May through July protocol in U.S. Forest Service USFS-sensitive Biological Evaluation and right-of-way along the of POD and NTP untermannii) in Duchesne County, Threatened, Endangered and species FSM 2670 route selected for the Utah Sensitive Plants Survey Field Guide construction of the (USFS 2005) transmission line Within areas of potentially suitable Within 300 feet of the edge habitat identified in the Per conservation agreement, follow Surveys as required by BLM of work areas, new and White River BLM models, including protocol in FWS Utah Field Office Handbook 6840 and improved access routes, beardtongue outcrops of the Guidelines for Conducting and BLM-sensitive Conservation Agreement and and the 250-foot-wide Prior to completion (Penstemon Not applicable Parachute Creek 1 1 year May through June Reporting Botanical Inventories and species (Utah) Strategy for Graham’s right-of-way along the of POD and NTP scariosus var. member of the Green Monitoring of Federally Listed, Beardtongue and White River route selected for the albifluvis) River formation in Proposed and Candidate Plants Beardtongue (SWCA 2014) construction of the Uintah County, Utah, (FWS 2011) transmission line and western Rio Blanco County, Colorado SOURCES: Beauvais, G.P. 2003. Field Surveys for Mountain Plovers in the Rawlins Field Office Region. Wyoming Natural Diversity Database. University of Wyoming. Laramie, Wyoming. Beauvais, G.P., and R. Smith. 2003. Model of breeding habitat of the mountain plover (Charadrius montanus) in western Wyoming. Western North American Naturalist 63(1): 88-96. Bureau of Land Management (BLM). 2008. Record of Decision and Approved Rawlins Resource Management Plan. Rawlins Field Office, Rawlins, Wyoming. Maintenance Change Sheets No. 254-1 and 254-2. BLM. 2011. Wildlife Survey Protocols, Version 2.3. Pinedale Field Office, Wyoming. BLM. 2014. Plant Survey Requirements and Protocols. Lander Field Office, Wyoming. Call, M.W. 1978. Nesting habitats and surveys techniques for common western raptors. U.S.E.I., Bureau of Land Management, Technical Note TN-316. 115pp. Halterman, M.D., M.J. Johnson, J.A. Holmes and S.A. Laymon. 2015. A Natural History Summary and Survey Protocol for the Western Distinct Population Segment of the Yellow-billed Cuckoo: U.S. Fish and Wildlife Techniques and Methods, 45 p. NatureServe. 2012. NatureServe Explorer: An online encyclopedia of life [web application]. Version 7.1. Arlington, Virginia. Available at: http://www.natureserve.org/explorer, accessed November 30, 2012. Romin, L.A. and J.A. Muck. 2002. Utah Field Office Guidelines for Raptor Protection from Human and Land Use Disturbances. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Utah Ecological Services, West Valley City. SWCA. 2014. Conservation Agreement and Strategy for Graham’s Beardtongue (Penstemon grahamii) and White River Beardtongue (P. scariosus var. albifluvis). Prepared for State of Utah School and Institutional Trust Lands Administration; Uintah County, Utah; Utah Public Lands Policy Coordination Office; Utah Division of Wildlife Resources; Rio Blanco County, Colorado; Bureau of Land Management; and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. Ulmschneider, H. 2004. Surveying for pygmy rabbits (Brachylagus idahoensis). Interagency Pygmy Rabbit Working Group. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS). 1992. Interim Survey Requirements for Ute ladies’-tresses Orchid. FWS. 2011. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Utah Field Office Guidelines for Conducting and Reporting Botanical Inventories and Monitoring of Federally Listed, Proposed and Candidate Plants. FWS. 2012. Mexican Spotted Owl Survey Protocol of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. USFS. 2000. Land and Resource Management Plan Amendment – Utah Northern Goshawk Project. USFS. 2005. Threatened, Endangered and Sensitive Plants Survey Field Guide. Washington, D.C. Utah Division of Wildlife Resources. 2005. Boreal Toad (Bufo boreas boreas) Conservation Plan in the State of Utah. Publication 05-37. Salt Lake City, Utah. Utah Division of Wildlife Resources. 2009. Utah Greater Sage-grouse Management Plan. Utah Department of Natural Resources, Division of Wildlife Resources, Publication 09-17, Salt Lake City, Utah. Wyoming Natural Diversity Database.

NOTES:

BA = FWS Biological Assessment ESA = Endangered Species Act of 1973 NTP = Notice to Proceed USFS = U.S. Forest Service BLM = Bureau of Land Management FSM = Forest Service Manual POD = Plan of Development WYNDD = Wyoming Natural Diversity Database EIS = Environmental Impact Statement FWS = U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service RMP = Resource management plan

Energy Gateway South Transmission Project Attachment A-19 Plan of Development Appendix B1 – Biological Resources Conservation Plan November 2016 Attachment A – Biological Resources Survey Requirements

THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK.

A1.5.1 Special Status Plants The recommended approach to, timing of, and requirements for the special status plant surveys for transmission line construction are driven by requirements contained in relevant environmental documents (e.g., Biological Assessment and Biological Opinion), the need for survey results to inform development of final mitigation measures for agency-sensitive species, and the need for survey results to inform the final design of the Project before construction starts. Information gathered during sensitive plant surveys will inform mitigation necessary for the final engineering and design of the transmission line and must be identified and documented in the POD prior to the anticipated transmission line construction. Additionally, survey results will inform construction monitoring needs by identifying the known locations of special status plants and areas of suitable habitat where they may be encountered. Any monitoring requirements will be documented in the Final Biological Resources Monitoring Plan to be included in the POD. A list of special status plants, for which surveys must be conducted, the agency-approved survey methodology, and the temporal and spatial extent of each survey for the transmission line construction is included in Table 2.

The agencies have required these early surveys for species of exceptional concern to the Project, including Uinta Basin hookless cactus, Deseret milkvetch, and clay phacelia, to allow adequate time for development of mitigation and incorporation of results into early design of the Project. Due to the anticipated density and/or sensitivity of these species along the agency-preferred alternative route, the results of these surveys could have a substantial effect on the design and alignment of the Project and the development of necessary compensatory mitigation or re-initiation of Section 7 consultation.

The agencies may require that reference populations of the target species be visited to confirm that target species are flowering, fruiting, or otherwise identifiable prior to initiating surveys. Multiple site visits may be necessary to ensure that surveys are conducted during the appropriate life stage (usually flowering or fruiting) of all target species. In select locations, with more than one target species, multiple site visits may be necessary if the survey windows do not overlap to sufficiently allow for surveys to be completed in a single visit. The schedule and number of required visits would be developed and documented in the agency-approved survey strategy. If new occurrences of special status plants are found, the entire extent of the local population intersected by the transmission line or other associated disturbance would be delineated and assessed. The results of these surveys will be incorporated into the POD for site-specific engineering and design, used to develop final mitigation, and used to develop monitoring requirements in coordination with the relevant agencies.

A1.5.2 Wetlands and Waters of the United States The recommended approach to, timing of, and requirements for surveys for wetlands and waters of the U.S. for transmission line construction are driven by the need for the survey results to be available to inform avoidance and mitigation measures necessary for the final engineering and design of the transmission line, to allow time for this information to be incorporated into the POD, and to allow adequate time for required permitting processes with the USACE. Based on these requirements, surveys for wetlands and waters of the U.S. are recommended to occur in all areas along the right-of-way.

In locations where potential wetlands or waters of the U.S. are located during field surveys, it may be advisable to modify new and improved access routes or structure locations to avoid activities that would require USACE permitting. All wetlands and waters of the U.S. that are confirmed through coordination with the USACE and cannot be avoided will require permitting and must be identified and documented in the POD prior to construction of the Project.

Energy Gateway South Transmission Project Attachment A-21 Plan of Development Appendix B1 – Biological Resources Conservation Plan November 2016 Attachment A – Biological Resources Survey Requirements

A1.5.3 Special Status Wildlife The recommended approach to, timing of, and requirements for surveys for special status wildlife for the transmission line construction are driven by the need for the survey results to be available to inform avoidance and mitigation measures to be developed and included in the POD, to inform the final engineering and design of the transmission line, and to provide information regarding the resources and resource density likely to be encountered during the construction of the transmission line. Survey results will be used to inform construction and resource monitoring needs, which will be documented in the Biological Resources Monitoring Plan to be included in the POD. A list of special status wildlife for which surveys must be conducted, the agency-approved survey methodology, and the temporal and spatial extent of each survey for the transmission line construction is included in Table 2.

Helicopter surveys designed to detect raptor nests are recommended to occur during the appropriate breeding season. Survey protocols and best management practices designed to avoid disturbance of nesting raptors during helicopter surveys would be developed through agency coordination and included in the survey strategy and raptor survey protocols prior to initiation of the survey effort. It is important to note that helicopter surveys are not efficient for detecting ground-nesting or cavity-nesting raptors (e.g., burrowing owls, short-eared owls, northern harrier, American kestrel) or raptor nests located in dense tree canopies. Supplemental nest information for these species will be collected from the Raptor Inventory Nest Survey (for areas on Vernal, Price, Fillmore and Salt Lake Field Offices in Utah) and as incidental observations during pedestrian surveys for terrestrial wildlife and will be recorded in survey reports and documented in the POD. Additional pedestrian surveys for migratory bird nests and nesting raptors will be conducted as part of the preconstruction monitoring requirements. These surveys will be conducted by the construction environmental team and/or the construction inspection contractor and are not included in this plan. Additional information about these surveys is included in the Biological Resources Monitoring Plan and Adaptive Wildlife Management Plan included in the POD.

Depending on the anticipated need for detailed raptor nest and occupancy data to support construction scheduling, monitoring, seasonal restrictions, and the processing of variance requests, it may be beneficial to conduct more thorough raptor nest surveys and annual nest occupancy determinations in the years leading up to the initiation of construction. Early nest detection and annual nest monitoring could provide a baseline of raptor nest occupancy information that could be used to support the construction phase of the Project but is not required for the objectives of this plan and has not been included at this time.

On completion of the special status wildlife surveys, coordination with the relevant agencies would occur to develop and document where appropriate avoidance, minimization, and mitigation measures would be implemented. The agencies may request that a biological monitor be present during construction activities to assist crews with avoiding sensitive resources in the field, modify Project features to avoid the resource, and the construction methods be modified or appropriate mitigation measures applied to reduce impacts. This coordination would occur on completion of the surveys and survey reports and then documented in the POD.

Energy Gateway South Transmission Project Attachment A-22 Plan of Development Appendix B1 – Biological Resources Conservation Plan November 2016 Attachment A – Biological Resources Survey Requirements Attachment B Biological Resources Monitoring Plan Framework THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK TABLE OF CONTENTS

B1.1 Introduction ...... B-1 B1.1.1 Plan Framework Updates ...... B-1 B1.1.2 Purpose of the Biological Resources Monitoring Plan ...... B-2

B1.2 Roles and Responsibilities ...... B-2 B1.2.1 Compatibility to Other Plans ...... B-2 B1.2.2 Company ...... B-3 B1.2.3 Federal Land-management Agencies ...... B-3 B1.2.4 Construction Contractor(s) ...... B-3

B1.3 Resource Monitoring ...... B-5 B1.3.1 Pre-engineering and Design Surveys and Reporting ...... B-5 B1.3.2 Year-of-construction Survey Updates ...... B-6

B1.4 Construction Monitoring ...... B-8 B1.4.1 Roles and Responsibilities ...... B-8 B1.4.2 Identification of Construction Monitoring Requirements ...... B-9 B1.4.3 Communication ...... B-10 B1.4.4 Reporting and Coordination Requirements ...... B-10 B1.4.5 Postconstruction Resource Monitoring ...... B-10

B1.5 Monitoring Effectiveness of Conservation Measures ...... B-12 B1.5.1 Determination of Effectiveness ...... B-13 B1.5.2 Identification of Conservation Measures Requiring Monitoring ...... B-13 B1.5.3 Monitoring Requirements ...... B-13 B1.5.4 Annual Reporting and Meetings ...... B-13 B1.5.5 Adaptive Management ...... B-14

LIST OF TABLES

Table 1 Year-of-construction Survey Update Requirements ...... B-7 Table 2 Postconstruction Resource Monitoring Requirements ...... B-11

Energy Gateway South Transmission Project Attachment B-i Plan of Development Appendix B1 – Biological Resources Conservation Plan November 2016 Attachment B – Biological Resources Monitoring Plan Framework THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK

LIST OF ACRONYMS

BIA Bureau of Indian Affairs BLM Bureau of Land Management BRMP Biological Resources Monitoring Plan

CIC Compliance Inspection Contractor Company PacifiCorp, doing business as Rocky Mountain Power

EIS Environmental impact statement ESA Endangered Species Act

FWS U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service

NEPA National Environmental Policy Act

POD Plan of Development

Project Energy Gateway South Transmission Project

ROD Record of Decision

USFS U.S. Forest Service

Energy Gateway South Transmission Project Attachment B-iii Plan of Development Appendix B1 – Biological Resources Conservation Plan November 2016 Attachment B – Biological Resources Monitoring Plan Framework THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK

ATTACHMENT B – BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES MONITORING PLAN FRAMEWORK

B1.1 Introduction In December 2008, PacifiCorp (Company) submitted an Application for Transportation and Utility Systems and Facilities on Federal Lands (Standard Form 299 [May 2009] submitted to the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) and the U.S. Forest Service (USFS) for constructing, operating, and maintaining the Energy Gateway South Transmission Project (Project). In response, the BLM, as the lead agency, in coordination with the USFS and other cooperating agencies, prepared an environmental impact statement (EIS) and land-use plan amendments to evaluate and disclose the potential Project-related environmental impacts that could result from the action proposed by the Company and alternatives of the Proposed Action. The Company’s interests and objectives, the purpose of the federal action, and a description of the Project are provided in more detail in Chapter 1 – Purpose and Need, Chapter 2 – Proposed Action and Alternatives, Appendix A – Applicant Interests, and Appendix B – Applicant Description of the Final EIS.

This Biological Resources Monitoring Plan (BRMP) outlines steps to be taken by the Company and its Construction Contractor(s) and subcontractors to ensure that the avoidance and minimization measures provided in Section B1.4 – Biological Resources Mitigation Measures of Appendix B1 – Biological Resources Conservation Plan are addressed during construction of the Project. Species to be covered by this plan will be identified following surveys to be conducted to inform preparation of the Plan of Development (POD). Lists of species that may be present in the Project area, and therefore may be included in this plan, are provided in Section B1.3 – Overview of Biological Resources Issues of Appendix B1 – Biological Resources. The goals, environmental requirements, regulations involved, scope, and proposed timing of the Project have been specified in Section 1 of the POD and should be consulted for detailed information. This monitoring plan framework will be applicable across all lands crossed by the Project.

To ensure biological resources are appropriately monitored, this plan framework contains:

 Roles and responsibilities of involved parties  Procedures for determining the decision process between the BLM, the Company, and the Construction Contractor(s)  Preconstruction survey methods to avoid or minimize impacts on biological resources  Survey protocols to be used to locate biological resources  Communication and decision-making protocols between the BLM, the Company, and the Construction Contractor(s)  Procedures established for communication and cooperation between Project personnel and biological monitors  Instructions for documenting, monitoring, and reporting on biological resources in or adjacent to the approved work areas for the Project

B1.1.1 Plan Framework Updates This plan framework will support the National Environmental Policy Plan of Development (POD) sufficiently to complete and execute the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) and U.S. Forest Service (USFS) Records of Decision, the BLM right-of-way grant, USFS special-use authorization, and the Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA) encroachment permit and grant of easement for the Project. This plan

Energy Gateway South Transmission Project Attachment B-1 Plan of Development Appendix B1 – Biological Resources Conservation Plan November 2016 Attachment B – Biological Resources Monitoring Plan Framework

framework serves as the baseline document to guide further development of the POD before issuance of the Notice(s) to Proceed and commencement of construction.

The complete BRMP will be prepared and developed by the Construction Contractor(s) in cooperation with the Company and the agencies as biological resources preconstruction surveys and detailed engineering design of the Project are completed and will contain the detailed information necessary for fulfilling the Project monitoring requirements. This plan framework provides Project-specific guidance to complete the BRMP by identifying the Project biological resources monitoring requirements, which will be based on the results of preconstruction surveys. This plan framework will be updated and refined through the development of the POD to meet any stipulations of the RODs, BLM right-of-way grant, USFS special-use authorization, and BIA encroachment permit and grant of easement before the issuance of the Notice(s) to Proceed and commencement of construction. The Company/Construction Contractor(s) will be responsible for implementing the BRMP.

B1.1.2 Purpose of the Biological Resources Monitoring Plan The purpose of the BRMP is to provide clear procedures and information to enable the Company, the Construction Contractor(s), the Compliance Inspection Contractor (CIC), and the federal land- management agencies’ Authorized Officers or their designated representatives to fulfill the biological resources monitoring requirements associated with the Project. This plan framework provides guidance for completion of the BRMP by the Company/Construction Contractor(s).

B1.2 Roles and Responsibilities The following section describes the responsibilities of entities specifically responsible for surveying and monitoring during the preconstruction, construction, and postconstruction phases of the Project; parties responsible for oversight of the surveyors and monitors; and decision-making parties as required. This section also summarizes the reporting relationships and roles in executing the BRMP. Details of the roles and responsibilities of parties involved in the Project are described in the Environmental Compliance Management Plan as shown on Figure A5 1 – Environmental Compliance Management Plan Organization Chart in Appendix A5 – Environmental Compliance Management Plan.

If other parties become engaged in this BRMP as additional participants, they would be responsible to function and abide by the protocols, terms, and conditions outlined in the referenced Environmental Compliance Management Plan as described in Appendix A5 and their reporting relationships would be case-specific according to their jurisdiction, expertise, and/or nature of their input. The roles identified below, as well as the corresponding responsibilities, are intended to be representative and not an exhaustive listing of either roles or subsequent responsibilities for those roles.

The various parties involved with the preconstruction, construction, and postconstruction of the Project include the Company, the BLM, the USFS, the BIA, the BLM’s third-party CIC, and all of the Company’s Construction Contractor(s).

B1.2.1 Compatibility to Other Plans This BRMP builds on and provides additional detail related to the roles and responsibilities of the parties described in Appendix A5 – Environmental Compliance Management Plan and the biological resources monitoring requirements identified in Appendix B1 – Biological Resources Conservation Plan.

Energy Gateway South Transmission Project Attachment B-2 Plan of Development Appendix B1 – Biological Resources Conservation Plan November 2016 Attachment B – Biological Resources Monitoring Plan Framework

B1.2.2 Company The Company will act as holder of all rights-of-way easements, public and private, and will be the grant holder for the BLM right-of-way grant, USFS special-use authorization, and BIA encroachment permit and grant of easement. As such, the Company is ultimately accountable for adherence to the environmental permit requirements specified in the terms of its agreements and is responsible to ensure environmental impacts do not exceed those analyzed in the Final EIS and approved in the POD. To facilitate this goal, the Company will maintain regular and consistent communication with the BLM, USFS, BIA, CIC, and Construction Contractor(s) and any other pertinent Project entities prior to, during, and following construction.

Detailed descriptions of the Company’s and its authorized entities’ involvement, including the Project Sponsor, Project Manager, Environmental Manager, and Construction Manager, are provided in Section A.5.3.1 of Appendix A5 – Environmental Compliance Management Plan.

B1.2.3 Federal Land-management Agencies The objective of the federal land-management agencies, including the BLM, USFS, and BIA, is to ensure compliance with the analysis and mitigation in the EIS; Biological Opinion; Programmatic Agreement; and right-of-way grant, special-use authorization, and encroachment permit and grant of easement compliance, respectively, during construction, operation, and maintenance phases of the Project. The CIC will represent the federal land-management agencies during the preconstruction, construction, and postconstruction (including reclamation and mitigation effectiveness) phases to ensure compliance with the POD, right-of-way grant (BLM), special-use authorization (USFS), and encroachment permit and grant of easement (BIA) and to ensure that environmental impacts do not exceed those analyzed in the Final EIS as approved in the POD.

Detailed descriptions of the federal land-management agencies’ and their authorized entities’ involvement, including the Point of Contact, Authorized Officers and the CIC’s Project Manager and Field Monitors, are provided in the POD in Section A5.3.2 – Bureau of Land Management, U.S. Forest Service, and Bureau of Indian Affairs of Appendix A5 – Environmental Compliance Management Plan.

B1.2.4 Construction Contractor(s) The Construction Contractor(s) will be contractually bound to comply with all laws, regulations, and permit requirements, including all Project-specific permitting documents and landowner agreements, throughout all phases of the Project.

Detailed descriptions of the Construction Contractor(s) and their authorized entities’ involvement, including the Project Sponsor, Project Manager, and Environmental Manager, are provided in Section A.5.3.3 – Construction Contractor of Appendix A5 – Environmental Compliance Management Plan.

B1.2.4.1 Lead Biological Monitor The individual designated as Lead Biological Monitor must qualify under the functional classification series for either 0486 Wildlife Biologist or 0430 Botanist as defined under the U.S. Office of Personnel Management. The Lead Biological Monitor must be highly experienced in the following topics: (1) preparing, evaluating, and conducting biological analyses of land and water resources projects and federal permit applications to ensure compliance with appropriate laws and to mitigate or avoid adverse impacts on resources; (2) classifying members of the plant kingdom by name and description and arranging them

Energy Gateway South Transmission Project Attachment B-3 Plan of Development Appendix B1 – Biological Resources Conservation Plan November 2016 Attachment B – Biological Resources Monitoring Plan Framework

according to their natural relationships into species, genera, families, and orders; and (3) describing the form and structure of plants and tracing underlying similarities in form among various plant groups. This person should have at least a master’s degree in biology or ecology. Responsibilities of the Lead Biological Monitor include the following:

 Coordinate biological surveys and monitoring work between the CIC and all Biological Monitors, oversight of Biological Monitors’ surveying for wildlife and special status plants or listed plants, and compiling and reporting survey findings and weekly reports to appropriate agency leads

 Submit names to the BLM, USFS, BIA, and FWS of all Biological Monitors to be conducting biological monitoring

 Ensure all elements of this Plan are successfully implemented

 Oversee and coordinate the activities of all Biological Monitors

 Coordinate, design, and participate in biological monitoring surveys during the preconstruction, construction, and postconstruction survey periods

 Conduct training classes for Biological Monitors on identifying wildlife species and habitats that support or potentially could support wildlife species of concern—not just special status species or threatened and endangered species—in the Project survey area

 Ensure quality assurance and quality control for all aspects of this Plan

 Identify specific special status plants or listed plants in areas of Project disturbance

 Prepare, evaluate, supervise, and conduct biological analyses of land and water resources projects and federal permit applications to ensure compliance with appropriate laws and to mitigate or avoid adverse impacts on resources

 Prepare and submit daily report findings, concerns, or issues encountered during surveying or monitoring activities

 Coordinate and provide recommendations to the lead BLM biologist so the BLM can make any necessary final decisions

 Provide a summary of plan compliance given to the CIC, Company, Construction Contractor(s), BLM, USFS, BIA, Utah Division of Wildlife Resources, and FWS offices (Ecological Services and Regional Offices, as appropriate) on completion of the construction phase of the Project During Project operations and maintenance, the Lead Biological Monitor and the Biological Monitors will be available for monitoring and reporting if actions may affect biological resources. Under this scenario, the Lead Biological Monitor will supervise and direct the Biological Monitors.

B1.2.4.2 Biological Monitors To help ensure construction activities are concluded in a manner that complies with all federal, state, and local regulations, the Company/Construction Contractor(s) will contract a team of environmental inspectors that will include Biological Monitors. Biological Monitors will be contracted or employed during the construction phase of the Project. The Biological Monitors will work under the Lead Biological Monitor and will coordinate with the CIC to facilitate implementation of the BRMP.

The Company/Construction Contractor(s) is responsible to ensure the Biological Monitors meet the applicable land-management agency requirements, including the educational requirements (or possess a combination of education and experience), for Wildlife Biologist Occupational Series 0486 and/or Botany Occupational Series 0430. Biological Monitors may be required to meet the requirements for other occupational series based on the work being performed.

Energy Gateway South Transmission Project Attachment B-4 Plan of Development Appendix B1 – Biological Resources Conservation Plan November 2016 Attachment B – Biological Resources Monitoring Plan Framework

The responsibilities of the Biological Monitor during construction will include, but not be limited to:

 Conducting year-of-construction surveys.

 Coordinating identification of resource presence/absence in biologically sensitive areas.

 Providing daily briefing of construction crews outlining restrictions associated with biologically sensitive areas.

 Conducting daily contact with the environmental inspectors.

 Immediately notifying the Lead Biological Monitor, CIC, and authorized agency Project Manager (BLM, USFS, BIA) in the event construction activities violate terms and conditions of the POD and/or right-of-way grant. The CIC and BLM and/or USFS and/or BIA Project Manager will notify/coordinate with the FWS and other state game and fish agencies as appropriate.

 Preparing a summary of plan compliance given to the Lead Biological Monitor.

B1.3 Resource Monitoring Resource monitoring is required to account for the annual variation in the abundance and distribution of all biological resources, including specific habitats or features, Endangered Species Act (ESA)-listed, BLM-sensitive, and USFS-sensitive species; to identify locations where conservation measures must be implemented to avoid adverse effects on these species; to document the effectiveness of measures taken to avoid, minimize, and compensate for impacts on these species; and to identify potential needs for adaptive management.

At this time, detailed engineering design of the Project and field preconstruction surveys for ESA-listed, BLM-sensitive, and USFS-sensitive plant and wildlife species have not been completed. Therefore, it is not possible to determine the full extent of the suite of species present in the Project area that may require monitoring. On completion of detailed engineering and design for the Project, a determination of species presence and which species will require monitoring will be made.

Appendix B1 – Biological Resources Conservation Plan contains lists of ESA-listed, BLM-sensitive, and USFS-sensitive species that may be present along the Project based on the analysis conducted for the agency-preferred route in the Final EIS. This list will be revised based on the results of surveys conducted to inform preparation of the POD.

B1.3.1 Pre-engineering and Design Surveys and Reporting Biological resources field surveys are required as a condition of the BLM, USFS, and BIA RODs prior to completion of final design of the Project and completion of the POD. These surveys will be conducted to identify sensitive biological resources that may be affected by the Project, including habitats occupied by ESA-listed, BLM-sensitive, and USFS-sensitive plant and wildlife species in and adjacent to the Project area. Where required per the conservation measures contained in Appendix B1 – Biological Resources Conservation Plan, field surveys also will identify areas of suitable habitat for identified species. Once these preconstruction surveys are conducted, the results will be used to inform the final engineering design of the Project and further development of the conservation measures contained in the POD.

Attachment A – Biological Resources Survey Requirements of Appendix B1 – Biological Resources Conservation Plan describes the preconstruction surveys that will be required and approved methodologies.

Energy Gateway South Transmission Project Attachment B-5 Plan of Development Appendix B1 – Biological Resources Conservation Plan November 2016 Attachment B – Biological Resources Monitoring Plan Framework

The preconstruction survey work to support completion of the POD and final engineering design of the Project must be conducted such that adequate time is available for required coordination with the BLM, USFS, and other cooperating agencies to review preconstruction survey results, provide management recommendations, and develop additional mitigation measures as needed.

B1.3.2 Year-of-construction Survey Updates Depending on the construction schedule for the Project, several years may pass between the biological resources surveys outlined in Attachment A conducted to complete the POD and the initiation of construction activities and associated impacts on these resources. Year-of-construction survey updates will be required to account for the annual variation in the abundance and distribution of ESA-listed, BLM-sensitive, and USFS-sensitive species and to identify locations where conservation measures included in the POD must be implemented to avoid adverse effects on these species.

Species requiring year-of-construction survey updates will be identified through agency coordination during the development of the BRMP. The Company/Construction Contractor(s) responsible for completing this BRMP will be responsible for conducting the required agency coordination, developing the list of species and survey methods for which year-of-construction survey updates will be required, and including this information in the BRMP prior to approval of the POD. In general, biological resources positively identified in the Project footprint during the preconstruction surveys conducted to complete the POD will require year-of-construction survey updates to confirm location and/or presence or use status.

Table 1 – Year-of-construction Survey Update Requirements outlines the year-of-construction survey requirements. At a minimum, year-of-construction survey updates will be required for raptor nests. Several raptor nest sites have already been identified along the Project right-of-way. Where other species locations or habitats features are known, preconstruction and year-of-construction monitoring could also start early and continue through the construction period. The agencies have developed a protocol for conducting these survey updates, which is included as Exhibit D – Preconstruction Raptor Nest Survey Protocol of Attachment C – Wildlife Variance Management Plan of Appendix B1 – Biological Resources Conservation Plan. Table 1 – Year-of-construction Survey Update Requirements will be updated by Company/Construction Contractor(s) to identify all year-of-construction survey update requirements, and additional survey protocols may be attached to this BRMP. The validity of surveys conducted in previous years will be verified annually prior to the survey season. The Company/Construction Contractor(s) will be responsible to confirm that the survey methodologies to be used are still valid. The final table and methodologies must be agreed on and approved by the BLM and other federal and cooperating agencies prior to approval of the POD.

Energy Gateway South Transmission Project Attachment B-6 Plan of Development Appendix B1 – Biological Resources Conservation Plan November 2016 Attachment B – Biological Resources Monitoring Plan Framework

TABLE 1 YEAR-OF-CONSTRUCTION SURVEY UPDATE REQUIREMENTS Location Where Surveys Are Intended Use of Resource Survey Protocol Timing of Surveys Required Survey Results Refer to Exhibit D – Identification of During the Preconstruction Raptor All areas of seasonal appropriate Bureau Nest Survey Protocol temporary and restriction areas of Land of Attachment C – permanent described in Management/U.S. Raptor nests Wildlife Variance disturbance as Appendix B1 – Fish and Wildlife Management Plan of described in Section Biological Service field office Appendix B1 – 3 – Project Resources seasonal buffers for Biological Resources Description each raptor species Conservation Conservation Plan Plan (Additional resources to be added during

completion of this BRMP based on survey results)

B1.3.2.1 Roles and Responsibilities The roles and responsibilities described in this section are intended to clarify and supplement roles and responsibilities described in Section 1.2 – Roles and Responsibilities for implementation of the year-of- construction survey update requirements of the Project.

Construction Contractor(s) Conducting the year-of-construction survey updates will be a responsibility of the Construction Contractor(s) or their environmental contractor(s). The Construction Contractor(s) will be responsible for ensuring the person(s) conducting the surveys meet the appropriate federal agency requirements to conduct the survey work prior to conducting the work and are using the appropriate, approved survey protocols.

Compliance Inspection Contractor The CIC will be responsible for reviewing the year-of-construction survey results with the Construction Contractor(s) and their environmental contractor(s), conveying the survey results to the agencies and making recommendations for adjusting (or identifying) the location(s) where conservation measures identified in Appendix B1 – Biological Resources Conservation Plan would be implemented based on the results of the surveys.

Bureau of Land Management/U.S. Forest Service/Bureau of Indian Affairs The BLM, USFS, and BIA (as appropriate based on land jurisdiction) will be responsible for reviewing and approving CIC recommendations for adjusting the location(s) where conservation measures identified in Appendix B1 – Biological Resources Conservation Plan would be implemented based on the results of the surveys conducted by the Construction Contractor(s) provided by the CIC to the agencies.

B1.3.2.2 Reporting and Coordination Requirements The Construction Contractor(s) responsible for completing this BRMP will be responsible for developing the reporting and coordination requirements for the year-of-construction survey updates and including

Energy Gateway South Transmission Project Attachment B-7 Plan of Development Appendix B1 – Biological Resources Conservation Plan November 2016 Attachment B – Biological Resources Monitoring Plan Framework

them in this BRMP prior to approval of the POD. The reporting and coordination requirements must be developed in conjunction with the BLM, appropriate federal cooperating agencies, and the CIC and must be concurred with by the BLM. In general, coordination with federal agencies and concurrence with the results of surveys and associated modifications to the locations where conservation measures are applied will be required before initiation of construction activities at affected locations.

B1.4 Construction Monitoring Construction monitoring is required to ensure the biological resources conservation measures identified in Appendix B1 – Biological Resources Conservation Plan are appropriately implemented during construction. Additionally, construction monitoring facilitates compliance with the stipulations in the POD by ensuring the Construction Contractor(s) has adequate staff and resources available to identify the resources addressed in Appendix B1 – Biological Resources Conservation Plan and interpret and implement the appropriate protective measures.

At this time, detailed engineering design of the Project and field surveys for ESA-listed, BLM-sensitive, and USFS-sensitive plant and wildlife species have not been conducted. Therefore, it is not possible to determine which species are present in the Project area; the locations where they may be present; and based on this information, the locations where construction monitoring will be required.

Appendix B1 – Biological Resources Conservation Plan contains lists of ESA-listed, BLM-sensitive, and USFS-sensitive species and other common species and specific habitat features that also may require some level of monitoring as they may be present along the Project based on the analysis conducted for the agency-preferred route in the Final EIS. This list will be revised based on the results of surveys conducted to inform preparation of the POD.

B1.4.1 Roles and Responsibilities The roles and responsibilities described in this section are intended to clarify and supplement roles and responsibilities described in Section B1.2 – Roles and Responsibilities for implementation of the construction monitoring requirements of the Project.

B1.4.1.1 Construction Contractor(s) During construction, the Construction Contractor(s) will be responsible for understanding the construction monitoring needs, providing appropriately qualified Lead Biological Monitor and Biological Monitors as needed, and communicating construction plans and schedules to the CIC and Biological Monitors.

B1.4.1.2 Compliance Inspection Contractor During construction, the CIC will be responsible for inspecting construction monitoring activities, reviewing the monitoring reports as developed by the Biological Monitors, ensuring that an appropriate level of construction monitoring as identified in this BRMP is occurring, and reporting any issues to the appropriate federal land-management agency.

B1.4.1.3 Bureau of Land Management/U.S. Forest Service/Bureau of Indian Affairs During construction, the BLM, USFS, and BIA (as appropriate based on land jurisdiction) will be responsible for oversight of the CIC, ensuring adequate construction monitoring is occurring, approving qualifications of biological monitors, and resolving any issues related to biological monitoring. During

Energy Gateway South Transmission Project Attachment B-8 Plan of Development Appendix B1 – Biological Resources Conservation Plan November 2016 Attachment B – Biological Resources Monitoring Plan Framework

operation and maintenance activities, the BLM, USFS, and BIA also will assume the responsibilities described for the CIC.

B1.4.1.4 The Company During operations and maintenance, the Company will assume the responsibilities described for the Construction Contractor(s).

B1.4.1.5 Lead Biological Monitor The Lead Biological Monitor will be retained by the Construction Contractor(s) and will be responsible for coordinating the efforts of the Biological Monitors, serve as the lead for all reporting, and act as a lead point of contact for the Biological Monitors, CIC, and the BLM, USFS, and BIA through the CIC and other parties as needed.

B1.4.1.6 Biological Monitors The Biological Monitors will be retained by the Construction Contractor(s) and will be responsible for conducting the construction monitoring, reporting, and other field-based tasks described in this BRMP, or as required.

B1.4.2 Identification of Construction Monitoring Requirements The specific construction monitoring requirements will be identified by the Company/Construction Contractor(s) in coordination with the appropriate agencies after completion of the biological resources preconstruction surveys and final engineering design of the Project. Therefore, this section provides general guidelines for identification of the locations where monitoring will be required and appropriate monitoring levels. This section will be updated and revised by the Company/Construction Contractor(s) prior to agency approval of the POD.

B1.4.2.1 Locations Where Monitoring Is Required In general, biological resources construction monitoring is required in locations where construction activities are occurring in or near habitat for ESA-listed species; BLM-, USFS, or state-sensitive species; or common species and habitats that also may require monitoring as identified in Appendix B1 – Biological Resources Conservation Plan. Biological resources construction monitoring is also appropriate in locations where biological resources conservation measures identified in Appendix B1 – Biological Resources Conservation Plan are applied to reduce or avoid impacts on any affected biological resources.

Biological resources construction monitoring also may be required for certain resources as a condition of exceptions granted by the BLM or other federal agency (refer to Attachment C – Wildlife Variance Management Plan of Appendix B1 – Biological Resources Conservation Plan) and also may be appropriate in other locations as determined by the CIC in consultation with the federal land-management agencies’ Authorized Officers or their designated representatives.

The locations where biological resources construction monitoring will be required will be identified by the Company/Construction Contractor(s) through agency coordination during preparation of the BRMP and prior to approval of the POD. The BLM and appropriate federal and cooperating agencies must concur with the locations where biological resources construction monitoring is required as identified in the POD and may identify additional locations or habitat features based on the most current data and conditions.

Energy Gateway South Transmission Project Attachment B-9 Plan of Development Appendix B1 – Biological Resources Conservation Plan November 2016 Attachment B – Biological Resources Monitoring Plan Framework

B1.4.2.2 Appropriate Monitoring Levels The number of monitors will depend on the resources present, the nature of the construction activities occurring, and the Construction Contractor(s) as determined by the CIC in consultation with the federal land-management agencies’ Authorized Officers or their designated representatives at an appropriate monitoring level. Activities that occur in biologically sensitive areas or during periods of heightened sensitivity are likely to require higher levels of monitoring. The CIC will coordinate with the agencies to determine the appropriate level of monitors needed in the area.

B1.4.3 Communication Communication between all parties will be critical to maintain environmental compliance throughout the Project. Communication will help maintain a consistent understanding of the Project’s environmental requirements throughout construction. As specified in Appendix A2 – Traffic and Transportation Management Plan, the Company/Construction Contractor(s), the CIC, and all Environmental Monitors will maintain a communications network that consists of one or both of the following devices, two-way radios or cellular phones. This will allow real-time coordination between all parties, which will facilitate resolution of any questions and/or monitoring requirements prior to construction activities. Oral communication will not substitute for written approvals.

B1.4.4 Reporting and Coordination Requirements The Company/Construction Contractor(s) responsible for completing this BRMP will be responsible for developing the reporting and coordination requirements for construction monitoring and including them in this BRMP prior to approval of the POD. The reporting and coordination requirements must be developed in conjunction with the CIC, the BLM, and appropriate federal and cooperating agencies and must have BLM concurrence. The coordination requirements should outline communication protocols and expectations between the involved parties during construction to facilitate appropriate monitoring. The reporting requirements should also outline procedures for developing daily, weekly, and annual reports. In general, Lead Biological Monitors should submit daily reports of monitoring activities, issues that arose, and compliance with required stipulations. Weekly reports summarizing the daily reports from the Biological Monitors should be prepared by the Lead Biological Monitor and submitted to the Construction Contractor(s), the CIC, the Company, the BLM, the FWS, the USFS, the BIA, and other federal agencies as needed. The Lead Biological Monitor also should prepare an annual report summarizing the findings of the weekly reports for the Project record, at a minimum. Reporting of noncompliance or corrective actions should be addressed as described in Appendix A5 – Environmental Compliance Management Plan.

B1.4.5 Postconstruction Resource Monitoring To comply with stipulations identified through the NEPA process, interagency consultation under Section 7 (a)(2) of the ESA, and agency policy based on the results of the preconstruction surveys completed to support the POD, postconstruction resource monitoring of certain biological resources will be required. Postconstruction resource monitoring will document the success of conservation and mitigation measures and help inform future management actions, planning, and project design.

The species or biological resources for which postconstruction resource monitoring will be required will be identified through agency and CIC coordination during the development of the BRMP. The Company, through its Construction Contractor(s) and CIC, will be responsible for conducting the required agency coordination and developing the list of species, monitoring objectives, and monitoring methods for which

Energy Gateway South Transmission Project Attachment B-10 Plan of Development Appendix B1 – Biological Resources Conservation Plan November 2016 Attachment B – Biological Resources Monitoring Plan Framework

postconstruction resource monitoring will be required. The Company, will be responsible for including this information in this BRMP.

The Company will be responsible for developing protocols for fulfilling these postconstruction resource monitoring requirements through agency coordination. The Company will be responsible for including the agreed-on monitoring protocols in the BRMP prior to approval.

Resource monitoring may involve the collection of quantitative and/or qualitative data. Specific quantitative criteria may be developed or qualitative activities, such as photographic documentation or qualitative evaluation of vegetation communities, may be used. Plant cover, density, vigor, and species composition are commonly measured vegetation attributes.

Table 2 – Postconstruction Resource Monitoring Requirements outlines the postconstruction monitoring requirements of the Project. At a minimum, postconstruction resource monitoring will be required for raptor nests if a variance to the BLM controlled surface-use stipulations for nest buffers are granted and for Uinta Basin hookless cactus that are transplanted during construction of the Project. Table 2 – Postconstruction Resource Monitoring Requirements will be updated by the Company to identify all postconstruction resource monitoring requirements and methodologies for the Project. Table 2 – Postconstruction Resource Monitoring Requirements must be agreed on and approved by the BLM and other federal and cooperating agencies prior to approval of the POD. Survey methodologies as identified in Attachment A – Biological Resources Survey Requirements must be verified for validity by the Company/Construction Contractor(s) prior to conducting survey.

TABLE 2 POSTCONSTRUCTION RESOURCE MONITORING REQUIREMENTS Action that Triggers Need for Postconstruction Duration of Monitoring Monitoring Resource Monitoring Monitoring Protocol Objective To be developed in coordination with Bureau of Land Management (BLM) Issuance of variance and U.S. Fish and To be developed in to BLM controlled Wildlife Service coordination with Raptor nests surface-use 5 years (FWS) for this the BLM and FWS stipulations for nest Biological for this BRMP prior sites to construction Resources Monitoring Plan (BRMP) prior to construction To be developed in To be developed in coordination with coordination with Uinta Bain Transplantation of 10 years the BLM and FWS the BLM for this hookless cactus cactus for this BRMP prior BRMP prior to to construction construction (Additional resources to be added during

completion of this BRMP based on results of surveys)

Energy Gateway South Transmission Project Attachment B-11 Plan of Development Appendix B1 – Biological Resources Conservation Plan November 2016 Attachment B – Biological Resources Monitoring Plan Framework

B1.4.5.1 Roles and Responsibilities The roles and responsibilities described in this section are intended to clarify and supplement roles and responsibilities described in Section 1.2 – Roles and Responsibilities for implementation of the postconstruction resource monitoring requirements of the Project.

Construction Contractor Conducting the postconstruction resource monitoring will be a responsibility of the Construction Contractor(s) or their environmental contractor(s). The Construction Contractor(s) will be responsible for ensuring the person(s) conducting the monitoring have the appropriate qualifications and are approved by the appropriate federal agency to conduct the monitoring work prior to initiating work and ensuring that all postconstruction resource monitoring reporting needs are met.

Bureau of Land Management/Bureau of Indian Affairs/U.S Fish and Wildlife Service The BLM, BIA, USFS, and FWS (as appropriate based on land jurisdiction and resources monitored) will be responsible for reviewing and approving the monitoring reports provided by the Company.

B1.4.5.2 Reporting and Coordination Requirements The Company/Construction Contractor(s) responsible for completing this BRMP will be responsible for developing the reporting and coordination requirements for the postconstruction resource monitoring and including them in this BRMP prior to approval of the POD. The reporting and coordination requirements must be developed in conjunction with the BLM and appropriate federal and cooperating agencies. The BLM will provide final concurrence with reporting and coordination requirements prior to implementation. In general, coordination with the appropriate federal agency is required prior to initiation of monitoring on an annual basis. Additionally, reporting of monitoring findings should be conducted, at a minimum, on an annual basis.

B1.5 Monitoring Effectiveness of Conservation Measures Monitoring of the effectiveness of conservation measures is required to ensure that the biological resources conservation measures identified in Appendix B1 – Biological Resources Conservation Plan reduce the impacts of the Project on biological resources to the levels of impact described in the EIS for the Project.

The intent of effectiveness monitoring is to determine whether the biological resources conservation measures reduce the impacts of the Project on biological resources and to identify the need for any adaptive management actions necessary.

In the event that the conservation measures are not adequate to avoid or minimize the effects as described in the EIS, this monitoring may inform adaptive management actions that may be taken to implement the appropriate protective measures.

At this time, detailed engineering design of the Project and field surveys for ESA-listed, BLM-sensitive, and USFS-sensitive plant and wildlife species have not been conducted. These surveys and engineering design will be used by the agencies to identify the site specific conservation measures in the POD that will be required to avoid, minimize, and rectify the impacts on biological resources. The site specific conservation measures must be identified before conservation measures that require monitoring of their effectiveness can be identified.

Energy Gateway South Transmission Project Attachment B-12 Plan of Development Appendix B1 – Biological Resources Conservation Plan November 2016 Attachment B – Biological Resources Monitoring Plan Framework

B1.5.1 Determination of Effectiveness On determination of the biological resources conservation measures that will be used for the Project, the Company shall coordinate with the BLM, USFS, and BIA to determine methods to be implemented, including effectiveness monitoring, to determine the effectiveness of the biological resources conservation measures in mitigating the Project impacts on the biological resource(s) being addressed. The details will be included in the BRMP prior to approval of the POD.

B1.5.2 Identification of Conservation Measures Requiring Monitoring Prior to commencement of construction, the Company shall coordinate with the BLM, USFS, and BIA to identify the biological resources that will require effectiveness monitoring to determine the effectiveness of the biological resources conservation measures. The biological resources and associated biological resources conservation measures that require effectiveness monitoring will be included in the BRMP prior to approval of the POD. The Company will be responsible for implementing effectiveness monitoring with review and approval by the jurisdictional agency. This section will be updated on determination of which biological resources and associated conservation measures will require monitoring for their effectiveness.

B1.5.3 Monitoring Requirements On field verification of species occurrence or habitat extents, the Company shall coordinate with the BLM, USFS, and BIA to determine the appropriate effectiveness monitoring requirements for each biological resource being addressed through the biological resources conservation measures. Monitoring requirements will be updated on determination of each resource being addressed. The details will be included in the BRMP prior to approval of the POD.

B1.5.3.1 Duration of Monitoring On completion of field verification of species occurrence or habitat extents and determination of the appropriate effectiveness monitoring for each biological resource being addressed through biological resources conservation measures, the Company shall coordinate with the BLM, USFS, and BIA to determine the appropriate duration of the required effectiveness monitoring. The details will be included in the BRMP prior to approval of the POD.

B1.5.4 Annual Reporting and Meetings Annual compliance reports shall be prepared by the Company or its designated representative to present information showing the effectiveness of conservation measures implemented during or after the Project is constructed. These reports will be submitted to the lead agencies by January 31 of each year following Project construction unless otherwise specified. This section will be updated by the Company on determination of the content and frequency of annual reports.

Meetings also may be conducted to determine if any corrective actions are necessary to remediate conservation measures that do not appear to be meeting set guidelines or standards. Notes from meetings will be circulated to lead agencies for review and approval.

Energy Gateway South Transmission Project Attachment B-13 Plan of Development Appendix B1 – Biological Resources Conservation Plan November 2016 Attachment B – Biological Resources Monitoring Plan Framework

B1.5.5 Adaptive Management As determined through the monitoring of the effectiveness of conservation measures, the Company will work with the agencies to determine if modifications are necessary to not exceed the thresholds of impacts analyzed in the Final EIS and approved in the POD.

Energy Gateway South Transmission Project Attachment B-14 Plan of Development Appendix B1 – Biological Resources Conservation Plan November 2016 Attachment B – Biological Resources Monitoring Plan Framework Attachment C Wildlife Variance Management Plan THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK TABLE OF CONTENTS

C1.1 Introduction ...... C-1

C1.2 Roles and Responsibilities ...... C-2

C1.3 Communication and Notification Protocol ...... C-4

C1.4 Affected Resources ...... C-6 Exhibit A – Request for Wildlife Variance Form Exhibit B – BLM Rawlins Field Office Resource Management Plan Appendix 9 – Exception, Modification, and Waiver Criteria Exhibit C – BLM Instruction Memorandum UT 2006-096: Best Management Practices for Raptors and their Associated Habitats Exhibit D – Preconstruction Raptor Nest Survey Protocol

Energy Gateway South Transmission Project Attachment C-i Plan of Development Appendix B1 – Biological Resources Conservation Plan November 2016 Attachment C – Wildlife Variance Management Plan THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK

LIST OF ACRONYMS

AO BLM, USFS, and BIA Authorized Officer or his/her designated representative (as appropriate based on land jurisdiction)

BGEPA Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act BIA Bureau of Indian Affairs BLM Bureau of Land Management

CIC Construction inspection contractor Company PacifiCorp CPW Colorado Parks and Wildlife

FWS U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service

POD Plan of Development Project Energy Gateway South Transmission Project

UDWR Utah Division of Wildlife Resources USFS U.S. Forest Service

WGFD Wyoming Game and Fish Department WVMP Wildlife Variance Management Plan

Energy Gateway South Transmission Project Attachment C-iii Plan of Development Appendix B1 – Biological Resources Conservation Plan November 2016 Attachment C – Wildlife Variance Management Plan

THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK

ATTACHMENT C – WILDLIFE VARIANCE MANAGEMENT PLAN

C1.1 Introduction This Wildlife Variance Management Plan (WVMP) provides a plan for the Bureau of Land Management (BLM), U.S. Forest Service (USFS), U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS), Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA), Wyoming Game and Fish Department (WGFD), Colorado Parks and Wildlife (CPW), Utah Division of Wildlife Resources (UDWR), and personnel of the Energy Gateway South Transmission Project (Project) to engage in flexible management of certain biological resources when conditions warrant during construction, operations, and maintenance phases of the Project. Biological resources, including raptor nests and big game seasonal ranges, were determined to be suitable for adaptive management and mitigation variances by the federal agencies due to (1) species use intensity of seasonal habitats; (2) timing of proposed project work; and (3) climatological variation, primarily mild winters. This Plan does not apply to species listed under the Endangered Species Act, including plants, greater sage-grouse, or nonraptorial migratory birds.

The WVMP contains procedures for granting exceptions to or modifying seasonal and spatial restrictions identified as Project mitigation measures, specifically seasonal and spatial mitigation measures, in Appendix B1 – Biological Resources Conservation Plan of the Plan of Development (POD). The WVMP provides a methodology that facilitates the approval or denial of these requests through the Level 2 variance procedure outlined in Appendix A5 – Environmental Compliance Management Plan and avoids the need for amendments to the right-of-way grant (BLM), special-use authorization (USFS), or encroachment permit and grant of easement (BIA).

Variances granted under the WVMP are exceptions to Project mitigation measures. PacifiCorp (Company) and the Construction Contractor(s) should anticipate variances will not be granted and plan accordingly with a contingency. Variances would be granted based on biological information, not necessarily on the need.

To ensure biological resources are appropriately protected, the WVMP contains:

 Roles and responsibilities of involved parties  Resource conditions that would permit variances to mitigation measures  Procedures for determining resource conditions  Procedures for communicating resource conditions and granting variances to mitigation measures  Procedures for monitoring resource conditions after variances are granted

Adherence to the mitigation measures included throughout the POD will be mandatory unless a variance request has been approved via the procedures outlined in Section A5.4.2 – Variance Procedures (Unforeseen Circumstances). Variances to seasonal and spatial mitigation measures must be granted in writing by the BLM, USFS, and BIA Authorized Officer or his/her designated representative (as appropriate based on land jurisdiction) (AO). Variances will be based on site-specific conditions and will not be applied Project-wide. Variances may pertain only to specific construction-related actions, which will be defined prior to approval of the construction-related action by the AO. The federal agency may restore the spatial and seasonal extent of mitigation measures outlined in the POD after granting a variance in the event resource conditions change, additional resource protections are needed as determined by a qualified biologist, or in response to a violation of terms and conditions of the variance to a mitigation measure.

Energy Gateway South Transmission Project Attachment C-1 Plan of Development Appendix B1 – Biological Resources Conservation Plan November 2016 Attachment C – Wildlife Variance Management Plan

C1.2 Roles and Responsibilities The parties involved in the Project and the WVMP include the Company, BLM, USFS, BIA, FWS, WGFD, CPW, UDWR, Biological Monitors, Compliance Inspection Contractor (CIC), and the Company’s Construction Contractor(s). Subcontractors to the involved parties may be engaged as needed. Each of the involved parties has other Project roles and responsibilities, which are outlined in Section 2 – Roles and Responsibilities.

C1.2.1 The Company During the construction phase, the Company will be responsible for reviewing and submitting the Request for Wildlife Variance forms (Exhibit A) prepared by the Construction Contractor(s) to the CIC. During the operation and maintenance phase, the Company will be responsible for preparing and submitting Request for Wildlife Variance forms (Exhibit A) to the appropriate federal agencies. Additionally, during the operation and maintenance phase, the Company will be responsible for contracting and retaining qualified Biological Monitors as needed to support operation and maintenance activities.

C1.2.2 Bureau of Land Management/U.S. Forest Service/Bureau of Indian Affairs The BLM, USFS, and BIA (as appropriate based on land jurisdiction) will be responsible for reviewing written requests using the Request for Wildlife Variance Form (Exhibit A) provided by the CIC during the construction phase and the Company during the operation and maintenance phase for variances to seasonal and spatial mitigation measures. The BLM, USFS, and BIA will coordinate with the WGFD, CPW, or UDWR to determine if variances are appropriate using professional knowledge, criteria outlined in the WVMP, and resource conditions presented in the request from the CIC during the construction phase and the Company during the operation and maintenance phase. The BLM, USFS, and BIA will provide copies of the Request for Wildlife Variance Forms (Exhibit A) and weekly reports submitted by the CIC, Company, and Biological Monitors to the WGFD, CPW, or UDWR. If resource conditions permit site-specific variances to mitigation measures, the BLM, USFS, and BIA will provide written notification to the CIC of the variance and identify work that is permissible at that location. The AO also will provide written notice to the CIC in the event that a variance is not granted or is granted with conditions. Permission granted also may be revoked by written notice at any time if conditions warrant such action.

C1.2.3 Wyoming Game and Fish Department/Colorado Parks and Wildlife/Utah Division of Wildlife Resources The WGFD, CPW, and UDWR will act as cooperating agencies to the BLM, USFS, and BIA in administration of the WVMP in Wyoming, Colorado, and Utah, respectively. The WGFD, CPW, and UDWR will provide Project and resource management recommendations to the BLM, USFS, and BIA for big game resources identified in Appendix B1 – Biological Resources Conservation Plan. Designated WGFD, CPW, and UDWR Project lead contact(s) will be identified prior to the completion of the POD.

The WGFD, CPW, and UDWR will review requests for variances to mitigation measures by reviewing the Request for Wildlife Variance Form (Exhibit A) provided by the BLM, USFS, and/or BIA. The WGFD, CPW, or UDWR will provide recommendations to the BLM, USFS, and/or BIA, as applicable, regarding modification of mitigation measures using professional knowledge, criteria outlined in the WVMP, and resource conditions outlined in the request. If variances are granted, the WGFD, CPW, and UDWR will be given the opportunity to review weekly reports submitted by the Biological Monitors to

Energy Gateway South Transmission Project Attachment C-2 Plan of Development Appendix B1 – Biological Resources Conservation Plan November 2016 Attachment C – Wildlife Variance Management Plan

the BLM, USFS, and BIA detailing resource conditions and Project activities in affected areas. The WGFD, CPW, and UDWR will submit questions or concerns regarding weekly reports through BLM, USFS, and/or BIA, as applicable.

C1.2.4 U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service All variances requested for bald and golden eagle nests and bald eagle roosting areas will be reviewed and approved by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) under their authority over the Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act (BGEPA). Eagle nesting variance request forms will be sent to the FWS in addition to the BLM, USFS, and/or BIA. The FWS will provide technical guidance to the BLM, USFS, and BIA, if requested, for resources over which the FWS has authority under the Migratory Bird Treaty Act and BGEPA. If requested by the BLM, USFS, or BIA, the FWS will review requests for other variance requests, which will be provided to the FWS by the BLM, USFS, or BIA.

C1.2.5 Biological Monitors To help ensure construction activities are conducted in a manner that complies with all federal, state, and local regulations, the Company/Construction Contractor(s) will contract a team of environmental inspectors that will include Biological Monitors. Biological Monitors will be contracted during the construction phase of the Project and may be contracted during operation and maintenance if the Company wishes to engage in adaptive management or variances. The Biological Monitors will work under the Lead Biological Monitor and will coordinate with the CIC to facilitate variance requests.

Biological Monitors must be pre-approved by the BLM, USFS, and/or BIA to ensure they meet the educational requirements (or possess a combination of education and experience) for Wildlife Biology Occupational Series 0486 and/or Botany Occupational Series 0430. Biological Monitors may be required to meet the requirements for other occupational series based on the work to be performed.

When a request for variance to a mitigation measure is received, Biological Monitors will be responsible for assessing the status of the affected resources. Biological Monitors will document and communicate resource status in writing to the CIC (during construction) or to the appropriate state and federal agencies (during operation and maintenance). If variances to mitigation measures identified in the POD are granted by federal agencies, it also will be the responsibility of the Biological Monitor to monitor resource conditions and Project activities in the affected area and provide weekly written reports to the CIC or appropriate federal agency. The Biological Monitor will be responsible for notifying the Construction Contractor’s Lead Biological Monitor and Environmental Manager if Project activities authorized using the WVMP cause unintended impacts on sensitive resources. The Construction Contractor’s Environmental Manager then will notify the CIC or appropriate federal agency within 24 hours of the impact occurring.

C1.2.6 Compliance Inspection Contractor The CIC is an on-the-ground agent of the BLM and other cooperating agencies retained by the Company during the construction phase of the Project. The CIC provides on-site compliance inspections and monitoring for the Project. This service helps to promote environmental protection and ensures compliance with requirements of the BLM, USFS, and BIA based on the commitments established in the POD.

The CIC will review reports provided by Biological Monitors regarding resource conditions to determine if a variance to mitigation measures identified in the POD may be potentially needed as outlined by the WVMP. When construction encounters areas identified as having protection measures currently in effect,

Energy Gateway South Transmission Project Attachment C-3 Plan of Development Appendix B1 – Biological Resources Conservation Plan November 2016 Attachment C – Wildlife Variance Management Plan

the CIC will submit a written variance request to the AO; and if the request addresses big game resources, the request also will be submitted to the WGFD, CPW, or UDWR in Wyoming, Colorado, or Utah, respectively. If the request addresses bald and golden eagles, the request will also be provided to the FWS.

If variances to mitigation measures are approved by federal agencies, the CIC will be responsible for conducting field inspections and reviewing the Biological Monitors’ weekly reports to ensure resource conditions identified in the WVMP continue to indicate the variance is appropriate. The CIC will immediately notify the appropriate federal agency and WGFD, CPW, or UDWR in Wyoming, Colorado, or Utah, respectively, if Biological Monitors report unanticipated resource impacts are occurring, resource conditions have changed and no longer meet criteria for variances identified in the WVMP, or the terms and conditions of the variance are violated.

C1.2.7 Construction Contractor(s) The Construction Contractor(s) will be responsible for communicating with Lead Biological Monitors, the Company, and the CIC to identify Project locations where work that would otherwise be restricted by the POD may be allowed using procedures outlined in the WVMP. The Construction Contractor(s) will develop and maintain a construction schedule that will be distributed to the CIC, BLM, USFS, and BIA. The construction schedule will allow agencies to anticipate where requests for variances may occur. The Construction Contractor(s) will provide a written request to the Company to investigate biological resources conditions at a particular site if the contractor wishes to request a variance at the location as outlined in the WVMP.

C1.3 Communication and Notification Protocol Timely, clear, and effective communication among the involved parties is a critical component to the success of the Project and implementation of the WVMP. This section of the WVMP identifies major steps in the development and evaluation of individual requests for variances to spatial and seasonal wildlife mitigation measures and necessary communications for each step. These communications and notifications are meant to clarify those outlined in Section A5.4.2 – Variance Procedures (Unforeseen Circumstances) for level 2 variances.

C1.3.1 Request for Wildlife Variance Requests for variances to mitigation measures will be initiated by the Construction Contractor(s) during the preconstruction and construction phases and the Company during the operation and maintenance phase.

The Construction Contractor(s) and their Environmental Manager and Lead Biological Monitor(s) will coordinate with the Company, CIC, and appropriate federal agency to determine if a proposed disturbance may be appropriate for implementing variances to mitigation measures during construction. The Company and their Lead Biological Monitor will coordinate with the appropriate federal agency to determine if a proposed disturbance may be appropriate for variances to mitigation measures during operation and maintenance. Variance request determinations will be made by the BLM, USFS, and/or BIA. The FWS will make determinations for all variance requests made for bald and golden eagles.

If deemed appropriate through the aforementioned coordination with the CIC and appropriate federal agency, the Construction Contractor(s) during the preconstruction and construction phases and the Company during the operation and maintenance phase will have their Biological Monitor perform the

Energy Gateway South Transmission Project Attachment C-4 Plan of Development Appendix B1 – Biological Resources Conservation Plan November 2016 Attachment C – Wildlife Variance Management Plan

necessary fieldwork to determine the condition of the resource for which adaptive management is requested. On completion of fieldwork, the Biological Monitor will prepare the appropriate documentation on the Request for Wildlife Variance Form (Exhibit A) describing the location, nature, and duration of activities that will be performed if the variance is granted and the observed resource conditions at the location. This information will be combined with a completed variance request form and submitted to the Company for review and upon Company approval and will be submitted to the CIC during construction or appropriate federal agency during operation and maintenance.

If a request is submitted to the Biological Monitor, the Company/Construction Contractor(s) will concurrently submit a written notification to the CIC (during construction) or appropriate federal agency (during operation and maintenance). The notification will include a Request for Wildlife Variance Form (Exhibit A) describing the location, nature, and duration of activities that will be performed if the variance is granted.

C1.3.2 Determination of Resource Condition On receipt of a written request from the Company, the Biological Monitor will perform the necessary fieldwork to determine the condition of the resource for which adaptive management is requested. On completion of fieldwork, the Biological Monitor will submit a written description of the resource condition to the CIC (during construction) or appropriate federal agency (during operation and maintenance) for which adaptive management has been requested. The written request will include a Request for Wildlife Variance Form (Exhibit A) describing the location, nature, and duration of activities that will be performed if the modification or exception is granted and the observed resource conditions at the location.

C1.3.3 Request Submitted to Federal Agency During construction, the CIC will review the variance request and appropriate exclusion or adaptive management documentation to provide a recommended action to the AO.

The CIC will review the location, nature, and duration of activities that will be performed if the variance is granted and the observed resource conditions at the location. During operation and maintenance, the Company will submit resource conditions directly to the AO. The AO will compile the resource information with the request previously received from the Company.

During the construction phase, the CIC will submit a compiled Request for Adaptive Management Form (Exhibit A) to the AO.

C1.3.4 Federal Agency Determination On receipt of a variance request from the CIC (during construction) or the Company (during operation and maintenance), the AO will collaborate with the WGFD, CPW, or UDWR in Wyoming, Colorado, or Utah, respectively, to determine if resource conditions and required protections are compatible with the requested variance if the request addresses big game ranges. Bald and golden eagle requests will include FWS authorization. Collaboration and review of a complete variance request will be completed within 10 business days, unless the federal agencies require additional time to review the request. The federal agency may grant, grant with condition(s), or deny the request for a variance to mitigation measures. On determination of the federal agency’s action, necessary communications and notifications will include the following:

Energy Gateway South Transmission Project Attachment C-5 Plan of Development Appendix B1 – Biological Resources Conservation Plan November 2016 Attachment C – Wildlife Variance Management Plan

 The AO will provide written notification of their determination to the CIC (during construction) or Company (during operation and maintenance).

 During construction, the CIC will provide written notification of the federal agency’s determination to the Construction Contractor(s).

C1.3.5 Monitoring of Activities If the federal agency grants a variance request to the Company, daily monitoring of permitted activities and resource conditions will be required in the affected area unless otherwise specified by the AO. On initiation of the authorized activities, necessary communications and notifications will include the following:

 During the construction phase, the Construction Contractor(s) will coordinate with and notify their Biological Monitors of the schedule of planned activities in the affected area.

 During the construction phase, the Construction Contractor’s Biological Monitors will prepare and submit weekly reports to the Construction Contractor’s Lead Biological Monitor and Environmental Manager; who will review and submit the reports to the CIC. The CIC will review and submit the reports to the AO. During the operation and maintenance phase, the Company and their Biological Monitor(s) will submit the weekly reports to the AO. The weekly reports will detail work performed and resource conditions in the affected area (refer to Appendix A5 – Environmental Compliance Management Plan for reporting and documentation requirements).

 The Construction Contractor’s Lead Biological Monitor and Environmental Manager will notify the CIC and the AO immediately if resource conditions become incompatible with the permitted modification, if unforeseen impacts occur, or if authorized activities may result in unintended impacts on biological resources. If unintended impacts may occur, all operations will stop until the appropriate federal agency is notified and grants continued work. At this point, the federal agency may cancel or modify the variance.

 The Company will notify the CIC or appropriate federal agency on completion of work in the affected area.

C1.4 Affected Resources Seasonal and spatial restrictions identified as mitigation measures in the POD to protect raptor nests and roost sites (including eagles) and big game habitats may be modified using this WVMP. Variances must consider site-specific resource conditions, resource sensitivity, and reasonably foreseeable future impacts of the proposed variance on current and future resource conditions. The assessment of the resource for potential WVMP implementation will occur in a relatively short time frame (i.e., same season) prior to the proposed construction or operation and maintenance activity for which a variance would be requested. Older records and data of the resource will be used only as supplemental information in addition to the real-time site assessment. This section of the WVMP identifies site-specific resource conditions that will inform the federal agency’s decision of suitability of adaptive management and provides a plan for the Biological Monitor to assess and document those conditions.

C1.4.1 Raptors Raptor variance requests will be based on preconstruction raptor nest and roost survey results and will be performed in accordance with BLM Instruction Memorandum in Exhibit B, BLM Rawlins Field Office Resource Management Plan Appendix 9 – Exception, Modification and Waiver Criteria (in Wyoming)

Energy Gateway South Transmission Project Attachment C-6 Plan of Development Appendix B1 – Biological Resources Conservation Plan November 2016 Attachment C – Wildlife Variance Management Plan

and Exhibit C – UT 2006-096: Best Management Practices for Raptors and their Associated Habitats (in Colorado and Utah). In addition to the Request for Wildlife Variance Form (Exhibit A), a request for raptors also will include submitting a completed Exhibit B, Attachment 1 – Site Specific Analysis Data Sheet. All raptor requests for bald and golden eagles will also be submitted to the designated FWS office for approval in addition to the BLM, USFS, and/or BIA.

Biological Monitors will visit the previously identified nesting location for which adaptive management is requested to determine nest status and raptor use in the area. In September of each year during construction, the BLM will send the FWS a summary report on raptor nests where project variances were requested. If at any time “take” under the BGEPA or the Migratory Bird Treaty Act is confirmed or suspected, the BLM, USFS, and/or BIA will notify the FWS immediately. Project-related activities that result in take of protected species should be suspended pending review by these agencies and the FWS.

C1.4.1.1 Unoccupied Nest If a variance is requested due to lack of occupancy at inactive nesting or roosting site (unoccupied), the Biological Monitor in coordination with the agency biologist must complete a minimum of three visits to the nesting or roosting site during the appropriate nesting or roosting period separated by a minimum of three days each. Nest status may be determined during preconstruction surveys or during construction monitoring by the Biological Monitors. To avoid inaccurately determining that nests/roosts are unoccupied due to surveys occurring prior to territory and nest selection, the three visits must not occur earlier than the incubation period for species that may inhabit nests in the area of interest. No more than one week may pass between the last nest/roost visit and the onset of construction activities. Alternatively, additional nest or roost visits should be regularly conducted until the onset of site activity. It is important to note that inactive eagle nests are protected under the BGEPA and may not be altered or destroyed without a federal permit. Under the BGEPA, an “inactive nest” is defined as an eagle nest that is not currently used by eagles as determined by the absence of any adult, egg, or dependent young at the nest during the 10 days before the nest is taken.

If adult eagles are observed near a nest during the early breeding season, a variance should not be requested until it is confirmed that the eagles have selected an alternative nest or that nesting will not occur. Biological Monitors will confirm adult eagle pair nest site use during the preconstruction and construction surveys.

Raptor nesting phenology in the Project area can exhibit annual variation, and timing of surveys should be coordinated with the AO. In general, each nest or roost visit period should be timed for 4 hours during peak activity. General nesting phenology for raptors in the Project area is presented in Table 1 of Exhibit D – Preconstruction Raptor Nest Survey Protocol. Visits must be completed during periods when raptors are most active (morning and dusk) and lack of nesting activity must be confirmed at each visit. The use of both a high-powered telescope and binoculars is required to enable Biological Monitors to make observations far enough away from nests to minimize stress and avoid eliciting a sustained territorial behavior from raptors. Biological Monitors will complete the Site-specific Analysis Data Sheet included in Exhibit C – BLM Instruction Memorandum UT 2006-096: Best Management Practices for Raptors and their Associated Habitats (Attachment 1) and submit the data sheet to the CIC or appropriate federal agency for review. BLM, USFS, and BIA concurrence is required (as appropriate based on land jurisdiction) before raptor nests or territories can be deemed unoccupied. A contact list of qualified raptor experts is also provided for each state. The experts can provide professional opinions and raptor biology expertise as requested by the Lead Biological Monitors and CICs, BLM, USFS, NPS, and BIA.

Pedestrian raptor nest surveys described in Exhibit C – BLM Instruction Memorandum UT 2006-096: Best Management Practices for Raptors and their Associated Habitats may be used to meet the

Energy Gateway South Transmission Project Attachment C-7 Plan of Development Appendix B1 – Biological Resources Conservation Plan November 2016 Attachment C – Wildlife Variance Management Plan

requirements for requesting variances, provided the appropriate information is collected at the time of surveys.

C1.4.1.2 Occupied Raptor Nest and Roost Monitoring If variances to raptor nest seasonal and spatial mitigation measures are granted for occupied nests or roosts, the Biological Monitor will monitor the nest/roost site daily during all authorized activities that may affect behavior or survival of raptors at the site. The use of both a high-powered telescope and binoculars is required to enable Biological Monitors to make observations far enough away from nests/roosts to minimize stress and flushing and to avoid eliciting a sustained territorial behavior from raptors. Monitoring must begin in the early morning, no less than 1 hour prior to construction personnel arriving in the area. Biological Monitors must remain in the affected area to monitor raptor activity for the daily duration of construction activities. The Biological Monitors will maintain a daily log of nest site conditions, raptor behavior, and authorized activities and provide weekly summaries to the CIC (during construction) or appropriate federal agency (during operation and maintenance). If monitoring detects an impact on bird behavior, territory establishment, nest or roost attendance, or nest or roost site conditions, the Biological Monitor will immediately shut down the source of disturbance and notify the CIC or appropriate federal agency, Construction Contractor(s), and the Company to avoid nest or roost abandonment or take.

C1.4.2 Big Game Habitats Adaptive management of seasonal restrictions associated with big game habitats will be evaluated based on seasonally variable climate conditions and site-specific determinations of habitat use. Biological Monitors will conduct two site visits to document habitat conditions and use in the affected area for which adaptive management is requested. Site visits will occur within the seasonal restriction time frame and temporally reflect peak or optimal activity patterns of the big game species for which adaptive management is requested. Biological Monitors will coordinate with local experts, including WGFD, CPW, and UDWR, in Wyoming, Colorado, and Utah, respectively; perform ocular observations and pellet searches to determine big game use; evaluate annually variable habitat conditions in the affected area; and document conditions, including the following:

 Vegetative status  Current climatic trends  Non-Project related disturbance  Availability and current use of adjacent habitats  Current and reasonably foreseeable big game use

The Construction Contractor(s) will submit this report to the CIC or appropriate federal agency for review during the construction phase, and during the operation and maintenance phase the Company will submit this report to the appropriate federal agency.

C1.4.2.1 Big Game Monitoring If variances to seasonal and spatial mitigation measures are granted for big game habitats, the Biological Monitor will monitor the affected area daily during peak or optimal periods of big game activity and during authorized construction activities that may affect behavior or survival of big game at the location. The Biological Monitor will keep a daily log of habitat conditions in the affected area, including all conditions and trends identified in the request for adaptive management. Weekly summaries of habitat conditions, big game behavior, and authorized activities will be submitted to the CIC or appropriate federal agency and WGFD, CPW, and UDWR, as appropriate. If monitoring detects an impact on big game behavior or habitat conditions change and are no longer compatible with adaptive management, the

Energy Gateway South Transmission Project Attachment C-8 Plan of Development Appendix B1 – Biological Resources Conservation Plan November 2016 Attachment C – Wildlife Variance Management Plan

Biological Monitor will immediately notify the CIC or appropriate federal agency, the Construction Contractor(s), and the Company so the impacts may be avoided or eliminated.

Energy Gateway South Transmission Project Attachment C-9 Plan of Development Appendix B1 – Biological Resources Conservation Plan November 2016 Attachment C – Wildlife Variance Management Plan

THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK

Exhibit A Request for Wildlife Variance Form

THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK

EXHIBIT A: REQUEST FOR WILDLIFE VARIANCE FORM

This form will be used to document requests for adaptive management of biological resources for the Energy Gateway South Transmission Project as described in Attachment B – Wildlife Variance Management Plan of Appendix B1 – Biological Resources Conservation Plan of the Plan of Development. All required data must be submitted to the BLM, USFS, FWS (for bald and golden eagles) and BIA with this form for the request to be processed. Attach additional sheets as needed.

Location of Request for Wildlife Variance (to be completed by Company)

Land ownership (check all that apply): BLM ( ) USFS ( ) State ( ) Private ( )

Impacted Field Offices/Ranger Districts: ______

Project Location: (Attach maps as necessary) From tower location: ______To tower location: ______

Activities for Which Wildlife Variance is Requested (to be completed by Company)

Description of construction or maintenance activities: ______Expected timing and duration of activities (include start date, length of time, daily duration, frequency, and timing variations): ______Type and number of equipment and personnel required: ______

Resource for which adaptive management is requested: Raptor Nest/Roost (list species if known) ( ) Utah/Colorado Big Game Habitats ( ) Wyoming Crucial Winter Habitat ( ) Wyoming Parturition/Lambing/Calving Habitat ( )

1 of 4

Determination of Resource Conditions (to be completed by Biological Monitor)

Raptor Nests: Complete raptor site-specific Analysis Data Sheet included in Exhibit D – BLM Instruction Memorandum UT 2006-096: Best Management Practices for Raptors and their Associated Habitats (Attachment 1). Include notes from all visits to nesting location.

Big Game Habitat: Provide information required below. All sections are required. Include information from every site visit and data gathered by coordinating with local resource experts.

Habitat affected by request for adaptive management (include information regarding vegetative status, current climatic trends, presence of non-project related disturbance factors, amount of habitat affected, availability of other habitats, extent of topographical and/or vegetative natural sight screening, and availability of water): ______

Current and reasonably foreseeable use of habitat affected by request for adaptive management (include information regarding ocular observations and pellet counts, climatic trends, anticipated seasonal movement, availability and use of other habitats, and response to other disturbance factors): ______

Potential effects of granting request for adaptive management on condition and use of affected and adjacent habitats (include information on direct, indirect, and cumulative effects on habitat values, individuals, and groups of animals): ______

Who to contact at the Company for additional information? Name and Title: Phone: Email:

2 of 4

Suitability for Wildlife Variance (to be completed by CIC or appropriate federal agency)

Is request for adaptive management consistent with management objectives for the affected resource? (Include rationale and current and desired resource conditions): ______

Are modifications to the request for adaptive management necessary to be consistent with management objectives for the affected resource? (If yes, provide explanation and description of required modifications): ______

Summary of request, resource conditions, and recommendations for federal agency Authorized Officer (Include recommendations to approve, approve with modification or conditions, or deny request for adaptive management. Include rationale.)

______

Signatures:

Company: Date:

CIC: Date:

BLM: Date:

USFS: Date:

FWS: Date:

BIA: Date:

3 of 4

THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK

Exhibit B BLM Rawlins Field Office Resource Management Plan Appendix 9 – Exception, Modification, and Waiver Criteria

THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK

Insert Exhibit B

THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK

Exhibit C BLM Instruction Memorandum UT 2006-096: Best Management Practices for Raptors and their Associated Habitats

THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK

BEST MANAGEMENT PRACTICES FOR RAPTORS AND THEIR ASSOCIATED HABITATS IN UTAH August 2006

I. Introduction:

Raptors, or Birds of Prey, are found on public lands throughout Utah. Approximately 31 species of raptors utilize public lands for at least a portion of their life cycle. These include 20 diurnal raptors, including the eagles, hawks, falcons, osprey, turkey vulture and California condor; and 11 mostly nocturnal owl species. At least 16 of the diurnal raptors are known to nest, roost and forage on public lands; while 2 others are probable nesters within the southern part of the state. The California condor is known to utilize public lands for roosting and foraging, but is not currently known to nest within the state. The rough-legged hawk is a winter resident that uses public lands for foraging. All of the owl species nest, roost and forage on public lands in Utah.

Eight of Utah’s raptors are considered to be Special Status Species by the BLM, and currently receive enhanced protection, in addition to the regulatory authority provided by the Migratory Bird Treaty Act (MBTA), which covers all raptor species. The bald eagle and Mexican spotted owl are listed as Federally threatened species and are afforded the protection, as well as the Section 7 consultation requirements, of the Endangered Species Act (ESA). The bald eagle is currently being proposed for delisting by the Fish and Wildlife Service. Both the bald eagle and golden eagle are protected by the provisions of the Eagle Protection Act. The California condor is a Federally endangered species, however, the birds found in southern Utah are part of an Experimental Non-essential Population reintroduced to northern Arizona under Section 10(j) of the Endangered Species Act. The BLM is required to treat the condor as a species proposed for listing for Section 7 purposes of the ESA. The northern goshawk is managed by a multi-agency Conservation Agreement. The ferruginous hawk, short-eared owl and burrowing owl are listed as Wildlife Species of Concern by the Utah Division of Wildlife Resources (UDWR, May 12, 2006), and are therefore recognized as BLM state-sensitive species under the Bureau’s 6840 Manual. The BLM’s 6840 Policy states that “BLM shall…ensure that actions authorized, funded, or carried out…do not contribute to the need for the species to become listed”.

Future raptor management on BLM lands in Utah will be guided by the use of these Best Management Practices (BMPs), which are BLM-specific recommendations for implementation of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Utah Field Office’s “Guidelines for Raptor Protection From Human and Land Use Disturbances” (“Guidelines”). The “Guidelines” were originally developed by the Fish and Wildlife Service in 1999, and were updated during 2002 to reflect changes brought about by court and policy decisions

Exhibit C-1 and to incorporate Executive Order 13186, Responsibilities of Federal Agencies to Protect Migratory Birds. The “Guidelines” were provided to BLM and other land- managing agencies in an attempt to provide raptor management consistency, while ensuring project compatibility with the biological requirements of raptors, and encouraging an ecosystem approach to habitat management.

These Best Management Practices, or specific elements of the BMP’s which pertain to a proposal, should be attached as Conditions of Approval to all BLM use authorizations which have the potential to adversely affect nesting raptors, or would cause occupied nest sites to become unsuitable for nesting in subsequent years.

Raptor management is a dynamic and evolving science, and consequently, as the science evolves, these BMP’s will undergo subsequent revision. As more information becomes available through implementation of these raptor BMP’s, and as our knowledge of raptor life cycle requirements increases, findings will be incorporated into future revisions of the BMP document. Additionally, BLM and the Department of Energy are initiating a 3- year Raptor Radii study which will test traditional spatial and seasonal nest buffers during actual oil and gas development activities for a select suite of species. Study results would be incorporated into new BMP revisions as well.

To adequately manage raptors and their habitats, and to reduce the likelihood of a raptor species being listed under the Endangered Species Act (ESA), BLM-authorized or proposed management activities and/or land disturbing actions would be subject to the criteria and processes specified within these BMPs. The implementation of raptor spatial and seasonal buffers under the BMPs would be consistent with Table 2 of the “Guidelines”, included here as Attachment 2. As specified in the “Guidelines”, modifications of spatial and seasonal buffers for BLM-authorized actions would be permitted, so long as protection of nesting raptors was ensured. State and/or Federally- listed, proposed, and candidate raptor species, as well as BLM state-sensitive raptor species, should be afforded the highest level of protection through this BMP process; however, all raptor species would continue to receive protection under the Migratory Bird Treaty Act. Modification of the buffers for threatened or endangered species would be considered pending results of Section 7 Consultation with USFWS.

As stated in the “Guidelines”, spatial and seasonal buffers should be considered as the best available recommendations for protecting nesting raptors under a wide range of activities state-wide. However, they are not necessarily site-specific to proposed projects. Land managers should evaluate the type and duration of the proposed activity, the position of topographic and vegetative features, the sensitivity of the affected species, the habituation of breeding pairs to existing activities in the proposed project area, and the local raptor nesting density, when determining site-specific buffers. The BLM would be encouraged to informally coordinate with UDWR and FWS anytime a site-specific analysis shows that an action may have an adverse impact on nesting raptors. The coordination would determine if the impact could be avoided or must be mitigated, and if so, to determine appropriate and effective mitigation strategies.

Potential modifications of the spatial and seasonal buffers identified in the “Guidelines” may provide a viable management option. Modifications would ensure that nest

Exhibit C-2 protection would occur, while allowing various management options which may deviate from the suggested buffers within the “Guidelines”, which, if adequately monitored, could provide valuable information for incorporation into future management actions.

Seasonal raptor buffers from Attachment 2 should be reviewed by local raptor nesting authorities who are knowledgeable of raptor nesting chronologies within their local area. For those nesting raptors for which local nesting chronologies remain uncertain, the seasonal buffers provided in Attachment 2 should serve as the default. However, for those raptor species whose known nesting chronologies differ from the seasonal buffers provided in Attachment 2, the local seasonal buffers may be utilized as a modification of the “Guidelines”.

Criteria that would need to be met, prior to implementing modifications to the spatial and seasonal buffers in the “Guidelines”, would include the following:

1. Completion of a site-specific assessment by a wildlife biologist or other qualified individual. See example (Attachment 1)

2. Written documentation by the BLM Field Office Wildlife Biologist, identifying the proposed modification and affirming that implementation of the proposed modification(s) would not affect nest success or the suitability of the site for future nesting. Modification of the “Guidelines” would not be recommended if it is determined that adverse impacts to nesting raptors would occur or that the suitability of the site for future nesting would be compromised.

3. Development of a monitoring and mitigation strategy by a BLM biologist, or other raptor biologist. Impacts of authorized activities would be documented to determine if the modifications were implemented as described in the environmental documentation or Conditions of Approval, and were adequate to protect the nest site. Should adverse impacts be identified during monitoring of an activity, BLM would follow an appropriate course of action, which may include cessation or modification of activities that would avoid, minimize or mitigate the impact, or, with the approval of DWR and F&WS, BLM could allow the activity to continue while requiring monitoring to determine the full impact of the activity on the affected raptor nest. A monitoring report would be completed and forwarded to UDWR for incorporation into the Natural Heritage Program (NHP) raptor database.

In a further effort to provide additional support and expertise to local BLM Field biologists, a network of biologists from various agencies with specific expertise in raptor management has been identified and included as Attachment 3. The personnel identified have extensive backgrounds in raptor management issues and are available, upon request, to assist BLM Field biologists on a case by case basis. Field biologists are encouraged to use this network, via informal conference, with one or more of the individuals identified. This coordination should be clearly distinguished from the consultation process required under Section 7 of the ESA. Individuals on the expert panel should not be expected to provide formal advice, but should serve as a sounding board for discussing potential

Exhibit C-3

affects of a proposal, as well as potential mitigation measures on specific projects which may be useful to BLM biologists.

II. Habitat Enhancement:

As recommended in the “Guidelines”, raptor habitat management and enhancement, both within and outside of buffers, would be an integral part of these BMPs, with the understanding that in order for raptors to maintain high densities and maximum diversity, it is necessary that the habitat upon which they and their prey species depend be managed to promote healthy and productive ecosystems. Habitat loss or fragmentation would be minimized and/or mitigated to the extent practical and may include such measures as; drilling multiple wellheads per pad, limiting access roads and avoiding loop roads to well pads, effective rehabilitation or restoration of plugged and abandoned well locations and access roads that are no longer required, rehabilitation or restoration of wildland fires to prevent domination by non-native invasive annual species, vegetation treatments and riparian restoration projects to achieve Rangeland Health Standards, etc.

In some cases, artificial nesting structures, located in areas where preferred nesting substrates are limited, but where prey base populations are adequate and human disturbances are limited, may enhance some raptor populations, or may serve as mitigation for impacts occurring in other areas.

III. Protection of Nest Sites and Buffer Zones:

As stated in the “Guidelines”, protection of both occupied and unoccupied nests is important since not all raptor pairs breed every year, nor do they always utilize the same nest within a nesting territory. Individual raptor nests left unused for a number of years are frequently reoccupied, if all the nesting attributes which originally attracted a nesting pair to a location are still present. Nest sites are selected by breeding pairs for the preferred habitat attributes provided by that location.

Raptor nest buffer zones are established for planning purposes because the nest serves as the focal point for a nesting pair of raptors. The buffer should serve as a threshold of potential adverse effect to nest initiation and productivity. Actions proposed within these buffer zones are considered potentially impacting and, therefore, trigger the need for consideration of site-specific recommendations.

Seasonal (temporal) buffer zones are conservation measures intended to schedule potentially impacting activities to periods outside of the nesting season for a particular raptor species. These seasonal limitations are particularly applicable to actions proposed within the spatial buffer zone of a nest for short duration activities such as, pipeline or powerline construction, seismic exploration activity, vegetative treatments, fence or reservoir construction, permitted recreational events, etc., where subsequent human activity would not be expected to occur.

Spatial buffer zones are those physical areas around raptor nest sites where seasonal conservation measures, or surface occupancy restrictions may be applied, depending on the type and duration of activity, distance and visibility of the activity from the nest site,

Exhibit C-4 adaptability of the raptor species to disturbance, etc. Surface occupancy restrictions should be utilized for actions which would involve human activities within the buffer zone for a long duration (more than one nesting season) and which would cause an occupied nest site to become unsuitable for nesting in subsequent years.

Unoccupied nests:

All Activities, including All Mineral Leases: Surface-disturbing activities, occurring outside of the breeding season (seasonal buffer), but within the spatial buffer, would be allowed during a minimum three-year nest monitoring period, as long as the activity would not cause the nest site to become unsuitable for future nesting, as determined by a wildlife biologist. Facilities and other permanent structures would be allowed, if they meet the above criteria.

Some examples of typical surface disturbing actions, occurring outside of the seasonal buffer, which may not be expected to affect nest production or future nesting suitability, would include; pipelines, powerlines, seismographic exploration, communication sites, an oil or gas well with off-site facilities which does not require routine visitation, recreation events, fence or reservoir construction, vegetative treatments, and other actions with discreet starting and ending times, and for which subsequent human activity or heavy equipment operation within the spatial buffer would not be expected to occur, or could be scheduled outside of the seasonal buffer in subsequent years.

Surface disturbing activities that would be expected to potentially affect nest production or nest site suitability, include; oil and gas facilities requiring regular maintenance, sand and gravel operations, road systems, wind energy projects, mining operations, and other actions requiring continual, random human activity, or heavy equipment operation during subsequent nesting seasons.

A nest site which does not exhibit evidence of use, such as; greenery in the nest, fresh whitewash, obvious nest maintenance or the observed presence of adults or young at the nest, for a period of three consecutive years, (verified through monitoring), would be deemed abandoned and all seasonal and spatial restrictions would cease to apply to that nest. All subsequent authorizations for permanent activities within the spatial buffer of the nest could be permitted. If the nest becomes reoccupied after authorized activities are completed, conservation measures would be considered to reduce potential adverse effects and to comply with the Migratory Bird Treaty Act and the Eagle Protection Act.

The three-year non-use standard varies from the “Guidelines” suggested seven-year non- use standard before declaring nest abandonment. This variation is based upon a similar standard which has been applied for over 20 years in two administrative areas within Utah. Empirical evidence would suggest the three-year non-use standard has been effective in conserving raptor species. The three-year standard has been applied without legal challenge or violation of “Take” under the Migratory Bird Treaty Act or the Eagle Protection Act.

Because prey base populations are known to be cyclic, and because raptor nest initiation or nesting success can be affected by drought and other random natural events, care

Exhibit C-5

should be taken when applying the 3-year non-activity standard. The 3-year nest occupancy monitoring requirement should be viewed as a minimum time period during those years of optimal raptor nesting conditions. During sub-optimal raptor nesting years, when nesting habitat may be affected by drought, low prey base populations, fire, or other events, the monitoring standard should be increased to allow raptors the opportunity to reoccupy nesting sites when nesting conditions become more favorable.

Occupied Nests:

All Activities: Land use activities which would have an adverse impact on an occupied raptor nest, would not be allowed within the spatial or seasonal buffer.

IV. Consideration of Alternatives and Mitigation Measures:

Alternatives, including denial of the proposal, should be identified, considered and analyzed in a NEPA document anytime an action is proposed within the spatial buffer zone of a raptor nest. Selection of a viable alternative that avoids an impact to nesting raptors should be selected over attempting to mitigate those impacts. If unavoidable impacts are identified, mitigation measures should be applied as necessary to mitigate adverse impacts of resource uses and development on nesting raptors. Monitoring of the effectiveness of the mitigation measures should be mandatory and should be included as a Condition of Approval.

V. Specific Strategies to be Implemented Regarding Other Resource Uses:

The following are management strategies designed to reduce or eliminate potential conflicts between raptors and other resource uses. This is a list of examples and is not intended to be an all-inclusive list. In all cases, when an activity on BLM lands is proposed, and a NEPA document developed, the site-specific analysis process identified in Attachment 1 may be implemented to identify and either avoid or mitigate impacts to raptors from the proposal. These strategies apply to both BLM and applicant-generated proposals. The strategies are as follows:

A. Cultural Resources

Excavation and studies of cultural resources in caves and around cliff areas should be delayed until a qualified biologist surveys the area to be disturbed or impacted by the activity for the presence of raptors or nest sites. If nesting raptors are present, the project should be rescheduled to occur outside of the seasonal buffer recommended by the “Guidelines”.

B. Forestry and Harvest of Woodland Products

Timber harvest would be subject to NEPA analysis and would be conducted in a manner that would avoid impacts to raptor nests. This could also apply to areas identified for wood gathering and firewood sales.

Exhibit C-6

C. Hazardous Fuel Reduction/Habitat Restoration Projects

Hazardous fuels reduction projects and shrubsteppe restoration projects should be reviewed for possible impacts to nesting raptors. Removal of trees containing either stick nests or nesting cavities, through prescribed fire, or mechanical or manual treatments, should be avoided.

It is important to note that certain raptor species are tied to specific habitat types, and that consideration must be made on a site-specific basis when vegetation manipulation projects are proposed, to determine which raptor species may benefit and which may be negatively affected by the vegetation composition post-treatment.

D. Livestock Grazing

Manage rangelands and riparian areas in a manner that promotes healthy, productive rangelands and functional riparian systems. Rangeland Health Assessments should be conducted on each grazing allotment, and rangeland guidelines should be implemented where Rangeland Health Standards are not being met, to promote healthy rangelands.

Locations of sheep camps and other temporary intrusions would be located in areas away from raptor nest sites during the nesting season. Placement of salt and mineral blocks would also be located away from nesting areas.

Season of use, kind of livestock, and target utilization levels of key species affect vegetative community attributes (percent cover, composition, etc.) and influence small mammal and avian species diversity and density. While not all raptor species would be affected in the same way, livestock management practices which maintain or enhance vegetative attributes, will preserve prey species density and diversity which will benefit the raptor resource.

E. OHV Use

Special Recreation Management Areas (SRMAs) that are developed for OHV use would not be located in areas that have important nesting, roosting, or foraging habitat for raptors.

Off highway vehicle use would be limited to designated roads, trails and managed open areas. Lands categorized as “Open” for OHV use should not be in areas important to raptors for nesting, roosting, and foraging

When proposals for OHV events are received, the area to be impacted, would be surveyed by a qualified wildlife biologist to determine if the area is utilized by raptors. Potential conflicts would be identified and either avoided or mitigated prior to the issuance of any permit.

Exhibit C-7

F. Oil and Gas Development

The Code of Federal Regulations (CFR), 43 CFR 3101.1-2, allows for well site location and timing to be modified from that requested by the lessee to mitigate conflicts at the proposed site, and states that the location can be moved up to 200 meters and the timing of the actual drilling can be delayed for up to 60 days to mitigate environmental concerns. The regulation also allows BLM to move a location more than 200 meters, or delay operations more than 60 days to protect sensitive resources, with supporting rationale and where lesser restrictions are ineffective. The Site Specific Analysis (Attachment 1) would provide the supporting rationale. Provisions are also present within Sections 3 and 6 of the Standard Lease Form which require compliance with existing laws and would allow the BLM to impose additional restrictions at the permitting phase, if the restrictions will prevent violation of law, policy or regulation, or avoid undue and unnecessary degradation of lands or resources.

G. Realty

Lands proposed for disposal which includes raptor nesting, roosting, or important foraging areas would be analyzed and evaluated for the relative significance of these resources before a decision is made for disposal or retention.

A priority list of important raptor habitat areas, especially for Federally listed or state sensitive raptor species, on state and private lands should be developed and utilized as lands to be acquired by BLM when opportunities arise to exchange or otherwise acquire lands.

Lands and realty authorizations would include appropriate conservation measures to avoid and/or mitigate impacts to raptors.

H. Recreation

Development of biking trails near raptor nesting areas would be avoided.

Rock climbing activities would be authorized only in areas where there are no conflicts with cliff nesting raptors.

In high recreation use areas where raptor nest sites have been made unsuitable by existing disturbance or habitat alteration, mitigation should be considered to replace nest sites with artificial nest structures in nearby suitable habitat, if it exists, and consider seasonal protection of nest sites through fencing or other restrictions.

Dispersed recreation would be monitored to identify where this use may be impacting nesting success of raptors.

Exhibit C-8

I. Wild Horse Program

In areas where wild horse numbers are determined to be in excess of the carrying capacity of the range, removal of horses, as described in the various herd management area plans, would continue, to prevent further damage to rangelands.

VI. Inventory and Monitoring

A. Each Field Office should cooperatively manage a raptor database, with UDWR and USFWS, as part of the BLM Corporate database. Raptor data should be collected and compiled utilizing the Utah Raptor Data Collection Standards developed by the Utah State Office, so that personnel from other agencies can access the data. Appropriate protocols for survey and monitoring should be followed, when available. This database should be updated as new inventory and monitoring data becomes available. The data should also be forwarded to UDWR and the Natural Heritage Program, which has been identified as the central repository for raptor data storage for the State of Utah.

B. Use of Seasonal Employees and volunteers, as well as “Challenge Cost Share” projects, should be utilized to augment the inventory and monitoring of raptor nests within a planning area, with the data entered into the above-mentioned databases at the close of each nesting season. Project proponents, such as energy development interests, would be encouraged to participate and help support an annual raptor nest monitoring effort within their areas of interest.

C. Active nest sites should be monitored during all authorized activities that may have an impact on the behavior or survival of the raptors at the nest site. A qualified biologist would conduct the monitoring and document the impacts of the activity on the species. A final report of the impacts of the project should be placed in the EA file, with a copy submitted to the NHP. The report would be made available for review and should identify what activities may affect raptor- nesting success, and should be used to recommend appropriate buffer zones for various raptor species.

D. As data are gathered, and impact analyses are more accurately documented, “adaptive management” principles should be implemented. Authorization of future activities should take new information into account, better protecting raptors, while potentially allowing more development and fewer restrictions, if data indicates that current restrictions are beyond those necessary to protect nesting raptors, or conversely indicates that current guidance is inadequate for protection of nesting raptors.

Exhibit C-9

THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK

ATTACHMENT 1

SITE-SPECIFIC ANALYSIS DATA SHEET

Observer(s) ______Date______

1. Conduct a site visit to the area of the proposed action and complete the raptor nest site data sheet according to BLM data standards.

2. Area of Interest Documentation (Bold items require completion, other information is optional)

State Office ______Management Unit ______

Project ID#

Location (Description)

Legal T , R , Sec. , 1/4, 1/4, or UTM Coordinates

Latitude Longitude

Photos Taken Y( ) N( )

Description of photos: ______

Raptor Species Confirmed Unconfirmed

Distance From Proposed Disturbance to: Nest ______Perch ______Roost ______

Line of Site Evaluation From: Nest ______Perch ______Roost ______

Extent of Disturbance: Permanent Temporary ______Distance from Nest/Roost ______Acreage ______

Exhibit C-11

Length of Time Timing Variations Disturbance Frequency______

Other Disturbance Factors: Yes (If yes, explain what and include distances from nest to disturbances) No

______

Approximate Age of Nest: New Historical: (Number of Years)

Evidence of Use (Describe): ______

Habitat Values Impacted: ______

Proportion of Habitat Impacted (Relate in terms of habitat available): ______

Estimated Noise Levels of Project (db):______

Available Alternative(s) (e.g., location, season, technology): ______

Exhibit C-12

Associated Activities: ______

Cumulative Effects of Proposal and Other Actions in Habitat Not Associated With the Proposal: ______

Potential for Site Rehabilitation: High Low ______

Notes/Comments: ______

Summary of Proposed Modifications:

Possible modifications to the spatial and seasonal buffers within the FWS “Guidelines” include the following: ______

Rationale: ______

Summary of Proposed Mitigation Measures:

Possible mitigation measures related to the proposal include the following: ______

Rationale: ______

Exhibit C-13

Summary of Alternatives Considered:

Possible alternatives to the proposal include the following: ______

Rationale: ______

Recommendation to FO Manager Based on Above Findings: ______

______Field Office Wildlife Biologist Date

Exhibit C-14

ATTACHMENT 2

NESTING PERIODS AND RECOMMENDED BUFFERS FOR RAPTORS IN UTAH

Brooding, Spatial # Days Fledging, # Post-fledge Buffer Seasonal Incubation, Post- Days Dependency to Species (miles) Buffer # Days Hatch Post-Hatch Nest, # Days1 Bald eagle 1.0 1/1-8/31 34-36 21-28 70-80 14-20 Golden eagle 0.5 1/1-8/31 43-45 30-40 66-75 14-20 N. Goshawk 0.5 3/1-8/15 36-38 20-22 34-41 20-22 N. Harrier 0.5 4/1-8/15 32-38 21-28 42 7 Cooper’s hawk 0.5 3/15-8/31 32-36 14 27-34 10 Ferruginous hawk 0.5 3/1-8/1 32-33 21 38-48 7-10 Red-tailed hawk 0.5 3/15-8/15 30-35 35 45-46 14-18 Sharp-shinned hawk 0.5 3/15-8/31 32-35 15 24-27 12-16 Swainson’s hawk 0.5 3/1-8/31 33-36 20 36-40 14 Turkey vulture 0.5 5/1-8/15 38-41 14 63-88 10-12 California condor 1.0 NN yet 56-58 5-8 weeks 5-6 months 2 months Peregrine falcon 1.0 2/1-8/31 33-35 14-21 35-49 21 Prairie falcon 0.25 4/1-8/31 29-33 28 35-42 7-14 Merlin 0.5 4/1-8/31 28-32 7 30-35 7-19 American kestrel NN2 4/1-8/15 26-32 8-10 27-30 12 Osprey 0.5 4/1-8/31 37-38 30-35 48-59 45-50 Boreal owl 0.25 2/1-7/31 25-32 20-24 28-36 12-14 Burrowing owl 0.25 3/1-8/31 27-30 20-22 40-45 21-28 Flammulated owl 0.25 4/1-9/30 21-22 12 22-25 7-14 Great horned owl 0.25 12/1-9/31 30-35 21-28 40-50 7-14 Long-eared owl 0.25 2/1-8/15 26-28 20-26 30-40 7-14 N. saw-whet owl 0.25 3/1-8/31 26-28 20-22 27-34 7-14 Short-eared owl 0.25 3/1-8/1 24-29 12-18 24-27 7-14 Mex. Spotted owl 0.5 3/1-8/31 28-32 14-21 34-36 10-12 N. Pygmy owl 0.25 4/1-8/1 27-31 10-14 28-30 7-14 W. Screech owl 0.25 3/1-8/15 21-30 10-14 30-32 7-14 Common barn-owl NN2 2/1-9/15 30-34 20-22 56-62 7-14 NOTE: 1Length of post-fledge dependency period to parents is longer than reported in this table. Reported dependency periods reflect the amount of time the young are still dependent on the nest site (i.e., they return to the nest for feeding). 2 Due to apparent high population densities and ability to adapt to human activity, a spatial buffer is not currently considered necessary for maintenance of American kestrel or Common barn-owl populations. Actions resulting in direct mortality of individual bird or take of known nest sites are unlawful.

Exhibit C-15

THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK

ATTACHMENT 3

RAPTOR MANAGEMENT EXPERTS FROM VARIOUS AGENCIES

The following personnel from various agencies in Wyoming, Utah, and Colorado are recognized experts in the field of raptor ecology or have extensive field experience in managing raptor resources with competing land uses. The list of personnel is provided to inform BLM field biologists and managers of this network of specialized expertise that may be able to assist, as time permits, with specific raptor management issues. Individuals in this network also have well- established contacts with an informal extended network of highly qualified raptor ecologists outside the state (i.e., USGS, state wildlife agencies, and universities, etc.), which could provide an additional regional perspective.

It should be pointed out that this list is not intended to replace or interfere with established lines of communication but rather supplement these lines of communication.

Wyoming Raptor Management Experts

Agency/Organization Name Email Phone Number Wyoming Bureau of Land Heath Cline [email protected] (307) 328-4232 Management Wyoming Bureau of Land Chris Keefe [email protected] (307) 775-6101 Management Wyoming Game & Fish Andrea Orabona [email protected] (307) 332-7723 x-230 Department U.S. Fish and Wildlife Julie Reeves [email protected] (307)-772-2374 x-232 Service U.S. Fish and Wildlife Kevin Kritz [email protected] (303)-236-4416 Service U.S. Fish and Wildlife Nathan Darnall [email protected] (307) 772-237 x-246 Service U.S. Fish and Wildlife Laura Romin [email protected] (801) 975-3330 Service U.S. Forest Service Tim Byer [email protected] (307) 358-7131 HawkWatch Intl Steven Slater [email protected] (801) 484-6808 x-108 Rocky Mountain Bird Nick Van Lanen [email protected] (970) 482-1707 x-28 Observatory NOTE: This list will need to be reviewed and updated for the final POD.

Utah Raptor Management Experts

Agency/Organization Name Email Phone Number Utah Bureau of Land Brandon McDonald [email protected] (435) 781-4449 Management Utah Bureau of Land Jared Reese [email protected] (435) 636-3624 Management Utah Bureau of Land Robin Naeve [email protected] (801) 539-4058 Management Utah Division of Wildlife Dr. Russell Norvell [email protected] (801) 537-3436 Resources

Exhibit C-17

Agency/Organization Name Email Phone Number Utah Division of Wildlife Brian Maxfield [email protected] (435) 790-5355 Resources (NERO) U.S. Fish and Wildlife Betsy Herrmann [email protected] (801) 975-3330 Service U.S. Fish and Wildlife Stephanie Graham [email protected] (801) 975-3330 Service U.S. Forest Service Chris Colt [email protected] (801) 896-1062 HawkWatch Intl Dr. Steve Slater [email protected] (801) 484-6808 x108 NOTE: This list will need to be reviewed and updated for the final POD.

Exhibit C-18

ATTACHMENT 4

LITERATURE CITED

Code of Federal Regulations; 43 CFR 3101.1-2, Leasing Regulations. Endangered Species Act (ESA); 16 U.S.C. 1513-1543 Migratory Bird Treaty Act (MBTA); 16 U.S.C. 703-712 Romin, Laura A., and James A. Muck. 2002, Utah Field Office Guidelines For Raptor Protection From Human And Land Use Disturbances. U.S. Department of the Interior, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Utah Field Office, Salt Lake City, Utah. Standards for Rangeland Health and Guidelines for Grazing Management. 1997. U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management. U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management; 6840 Manual.

Exhibit C-19

THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK

Exhibit D Preconstruction Raptor Nest Survey Protocol

THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK

EXHIBIT D – PRECONSTRUCTION RAPTOR NEST SURVEY PROTOCOL

Introduction

Raptor nest surveys will be required to identify locations of active raptor nests if construction activities are to take place during the active raptor nesting season (December 1 to September 30). The purpose of the surveys will be to identify active raptor nests within 0.5 mile of the Project (1.0 mile for bald eagle and peregrine falcon) that may be disturbed by construction activities. Appropriate seasonal and spatial buffers will be applied to protect active nests (Romin and Muck 2002; Bureau of Land Management [BLM] Instruction Memorandum UT 2006-096).

Early and frequent coordination with the BLM, U.S. Forest Service (USFS), and Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA) is essential to ensure surveys are accepted by the agencies and can be used as a basis for identifying locations where seasonal restriction are and are not required. Upon request, the BLM will supply locations and WLRNest Numbers (unique identifiers) of known nests to the survey team so the activity status of these nests can be monitored. However, another goal of preconstruction raptor nest surveys will be to identify nests that were not present or not detected during previous survey efforts. A pre-survey meeting should be held with the BLM, USFS, and BIA at least 2 weeks prior to the initiation of raptor nest surveys.

Raptor behavior and nesting phenology exhibit annual variability due to fluctuations in environmental and climatic conditions. Temporal modifications to the protocol described here may be required to ensure appropriate protections are provided for nesting raptors in the Project area. During monitoring of nests for activity status, weekly or biweekly written reports will be submitted to the BLM, USFS, and BIA lead biologists.

Qualifications

Raptor nest surveyors must meet the educational requirements (or possess a combination of education and experience) for Wildlife Biology Occupational Series 0486 and be pre-approved by the BLM, USFS, and BIA. Surveyors should have experience in raptor behavior as well as excellent raptor-identification skills. Raptor surveyors should be able to identify raptor species visually and be familiar with the calls of those raptors expected to be in the Project area and any similar sounds that they could be confused with. The act of surveying has the potential to disturb or molest the species surveyed. The qualified biologist will be responsible to prevent “take” during the survey.

Methods

Preconstruction raptor nest surveys will be performed using both pedestrian and aerial methods, as determined in coordination with the BLM, USFS, and BIA. Aerial methods are most appropriate when construction activities are scheduled to begin after or during the incubation period for raptors found in the Project area. Aerial surveys are most appropriate for documenting the location of nests on a broad scale; however, due to variability in raptor species territory establishment and nest building, surveyors should exercise caution when making occupancy and species determinations during aerial surveys alone.

Exhibit D-1

Supplemental pedestrian surveys should be employed whenever a conclusive occupancy determination cannot be established.

Pedestrian methods are most appropriate for construction seasons where construction activities will begin before or during the territory-establishment and nest-building periods. It should be noted that aerial methods are not suitable for detecting ground-nesting raptors, species that commonly nest in thick vegetative cover, or when repeated visits to individual nests during the early breeding season would be necessary to determine nest occupancy. Therefore, pedestrian surveys will be performed in areas likely to be selected for nesting by species that nest at or near ground level or species that nest in thick vegetative cover and in situations where a nest needs to be visited several times.

Raptor nesting phenology in the Project area can exhibit annual variation, and timing of surveys should be coordinated with the BLM, USFS, and BIA. General nesting phenology for raptors identified during 2012 raptor nest surveys is presented in Table 1 (Call 1978).

TABLE 1 NESTING PHENOLOGY OF RAPTORS FOUND IN THE PROJECT AREA DURING AERIAL SURVEYS IN 2012 Species Nest Building Egg Laying Incubation Hatching Fledging May 21 to May 25 to June 23 to July 11 to Osprey April 22 to May 31 June 7 July 10 July 10 August 1 February 6 to March 5 to March 23 to April 6 to May 16 to Red-tailed hawk March 25 April 21 May 2 May 23 July 1 March 17 to March 21 to April 16 to June 4 to Ferruginous hawk March 10 to 16 April 1 May 21 May 21 July 2 March 10 to April 2 to June 7 to Golden eagle February 2 to 26 March 6 to 30 May 14 May 14 June 21 March 21 to March 23 to April 22 to June 1 to Peregrine falcon April 16 May 16 May 16 June 26 April 20 to April 28 to May 26 to July 2 to Prairie falcon May 1 June 6 June 6 July 15 January 1 to January 20 to January 25 to February 27 to March 31 to Great horned owl February 28 April 10 May 12 May 12 June 17 April 30 to May 1 to June 4 to July 3 to Burrowing owl April 17 to May 25 June 6 June 17 June 17 July 10 January 6 to April February 6 to February 14 to March 4 to April 28 to Barn owl 10 May 18 June 17 June 17 July 23 March 6 to March 28 to April 2 to April 25 to June 1 to Short-eared owl April 12 May 3 May 28 June 28 July 29 SOURCE: Call 1978

Survey Area Preconstruction raptor nest surveys for most species will encompass all areas within 0.5 mile from the transmission line right-of-way, access roads, work areas, and other Project features. For areas presenting suitable nesting habitat for bald eagle and peregrine falcon, the survey area should extend 1.0 mile from these features. Surveys will be focused on previously identified nests but should also be intended to detect newly constructed, reoccupied, or previously unrecorded nests.

Potentially suitable bald eagle nesting habitat is defined as areas with cliffs or large trees near lakes, reservoirs, or streams capable of supporting a productive fishery. In addition, potentially suitable nesting habitat for bald eagles should be relatively free from direct and indirect human disturbance. Potentially suitable peregrine falcon nesting habitat consists of large cliff habitat adjacent to vegetation types capable

Exhibit D-2

of providing an adequate prey base for raising young (e.g., coniferous forest and/or well-developed riparian forest).

Aerial Raptor Nest Surveys No comprehensive, agency-sanctioned, formal protocol exists to describe the field methodology for conducting aerial surveys for raptor nests in all situations. Guidance for the method described here was provided by the BLM Nesting Survey Protocols for Common Western Raptors (Call 1978) and by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Utah Field Office Guidelines for Raptor Protection from Human and Land Use Disturbances (Romin and Muck 2002).

Aerial surveys in the Project area are designed and conducted primarily to detect nests of golden eagle, bald eagle, peregrine falcon, prairie falcon, red-tailed hawk, ferruginous hawk, Swainson’s hawk, barn owl, and great horned owl. As previously mentioned, pedestrian surveys should be employed for detecting species that nest at or near ground level or in thick vegetative cover.

Aerial raptor surveys should be conducted with a helicopter with the objective of minimizing disturbance to nesting raptors. Therefore, the helicopter should not approach any closer to nests than is absolutely necessary to identify nest status and species.

No fixed survey transect lines are used for aerial raptor nest surveys. Instead, the helicopter should fly a variable flight path in the raptor survey area to investigate the most likely substrates capable of hosting raptor nests. These substrates include, but are not limited to, electric transmission towers, wooden power poles, cottonwood trees, lone trees of any species, groves of riparian trees, forested or wooded habitat, cliffs, bluffs, rocky outcrops, canyons, ridges, knolls, barns, windmills, abandoned structures, and water towers. Aerial flight paths will be recorded using a global positioning system and will be provided to the BLM, USFS, and BIA as an electronic deliverable.

Observers will locate and record the status of all previously occupied, unoccupied, and actively maintained alternate nests (i.e., for golden eagles) and locate nests previously unknown or unrecorded. For all occupied nests, the species occupying the nest should also be recorded if the surveyors are confident that the species has been positively identified. All data gathered must conform to standards employed by the BLM Wyoming State Office. The BLM also will provide Raptor Nest-Eyrie Data Sheets that will be completed for each raptor nest identified during the surveys and a list of previously unassigned WLRNest Numbers (unique identifiers) that will be assigned to any new or previously unrecorded nests.

Occupied (Active) Nests Occupied (active) nests are defined as those nests that are repaired or tended in the current year by a pair of raptors. Presence of raptors (e.g., adults, eggs, or young), evidence of nest repair or nest marking, freshly molted feathers or plucked down, or a current year’s mute remains (whitewash) suggest site occupancy. Additionally, all nest sites in a nesting territory are deemed occupied while raptors are demonstrating pair-bonding activities and developing an affinity to a given area. If this culminates in an individual nest being selected for use by a breeding pair, then the other nests in the nesting territory will no longer be considered occupied for the current breeding season. A nest site remains occupied throughout the periods of initial courtship and pair bonding, egg laying, incubation, brooding, fledging, and post-fledging dependency of the young.

Unoccupied (Inactive) Nests Unoccupied (inactive) nests are defined as those nests not selected by raptors for use in the current year. Nests would also be considered unoccupied for the nonbreeding period of the year (refer to Exhibit D –

Exhibit D-3

BLM Instruction Memorandum UT 2006-096: Best Management Practices for Raptors and their Associated Habitats). The exact point in time when a nest becomes unoccupied should be determined by a qualified wildlife biologist based on knowledge that the breeding season has advanced such that nesting is not expected. Inactivity at a nest site or territory does not necessarily indicate permanent abandonment.

Some nests and raptor observation sites resulting from the aerial survey are likely to require follow-up ground visits if certain conditions are met. Pedestrian revisits should follow the methodology described below under Pedestrian Raptor Nest Surveys. Follow-up ground visits should be conducted at locations where:

 Inactive nests contained fresh greenery but no adults, young, eggs, or other evidence of current use observed during the aerial survey;  Nests are classified as occupied, but the species of raptor cannot be positively identified during the aerial survey;  Required information cannot be gathered successfully during the aerial survey;  A raptor is seen to flush from a perch during the aerial survey, exhibits strong site attachment behavior, and/or exhibits territorial behavior but no nest is found during a subsequent aerial search; or  A variance is being requested in an area with a nest recorded in a database.

Pedestrian Raptor Nest Surveys Pedestrian raptor nest surveys described in this section are designed to detect raptor nesting activity as well as raptor behaviors characteristic of establishment of nesting territories. Pedestrian methods are advantageous in comparison to aerial methods in that they are more suited to identifying site attachment behavior and territory establishment, which are precursors to nest building and occupancy. Disturbance to raptors during territory establishment is considered by the agencies to be disturbance of nesting activities. Seasonal and spatial buffers will be applied to areas where raptors exhibit site attachment. Pedestrian surveys are usually necessary to detect ground-nesting raptors, including burrowing owls and short-eared owls. Pedestrian surveys should also be employed to detect species that commonly nest in thick vegetative cover, including Cooper’s hawks. Similar to methods described for aerial raptor nest surveys, surveyors should attempt to investigate the most likely substrates capable of hosting raptor nests. Raptors detected during pedestrian surveys should be observed for up to 20 minutes, as these sightings often can lead surveyors to raptor nests.

A minimum of three visits of extended durations will be conducted for each identified raptor nest/territory. Each visit must occur at least 2 weeks after the previous visit, and the first visit must not occur prior to the initiation of courtship and establishment of nesting territories for the species with a reasonable probability of occupying the nest in question (Table 1). Courtship and territory establishment behavior exhibit annual temporal variability due to fluctuations in environmental and climatic conditions. Temporal modifications to the protocol as described here (coordinated with the BLM, USFS, and BIA, as appropriate) may be required.

Each visit will be conducted during favorable weather conditions by observers meeting the qualifications described above. Visits will be conducted during hours when raptors are most likely to be active, generally at first light or before dark. The use of both a high-powered telescope and binoculars is recommended to enable Biological Monitors to make observations far enough away from nests to minimize stress and avoid eliciting a sustained territorial behavior from raptors.

Detailed field notes will be taken during each visit using the Raptor Observation Cards provided by the BLM, which will be digitized and submitted as a separate excel file. All previously documented nests will

Exhibit D-4

use the same unique identifier (WLRNest No.) and new nests (not previously known) will be assigned a new number.

A territory/nest will be determined to be occupied (active) when a pair of raptors are present (two adults or an adult/sub-adult mixed pair). A territory/nest will be determined unoccupied when no raptors are observed in the area during the monitoring period. If the known nest location does not appear to be occupied, a realistic survey effort (to be determined in coordination with the BLM, USFS, and BIA, as appropriate based on land jurisdiction) will be expended to try and locate potential alternate nest sites in the territory. If a nest site in a territory is deemed unoccupied after sufficient surveys have been conducted, as described above, human activity could be allowed in the nesting area in the current breeding season and prior to the beginning of the next year’s breeding season, which varies dependent on raptor species (Table 1). BLM, USFS, and BIA concurrence is required (as appropriate based on land jurisdiction) before any raptor nests or territories can be deemed unoccupied.

Any request for work in an active nest buffer must use the procedures outlined in Exhibit D – Best Management Practices for Raptors and Their Associated Habitats in Utah. If the raptor nest surveys described in this document are conducted so that they also meet all of the criteria described for determining resource status in the Adaptive Wildlife Management Plan, the results may be used to prepare a Request for Adaptive Management.

Species-specific Considerations Golden eagle courtship in southern Utah may begin as early as January and continues through the end of February. Each nest territory will be visited every 2 weeks, beginning as early as the week of January 1 through the week of February 25, to identify and document territory occupancy and courtship initiation activity.

Exhibit D-5

Literature Cited

Bureau of Land Management. 2015. Approved Resource Management Plan Amendment for Greater Sage Grouse. Casper, Kemmerer, Newcastle, Pinedale, Rawlins, and Rock Springs Field Offices. U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Wyoming State Office. Cheyenne, Wyoming. ___. 2008. Approved Rawlins Resource Management Plan, Appendix 16 – Mountain Plover Management Guidelines: Occupied Habitat Protection Measures. U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management. Rawlins, Wyoming. ___. 2011. Wildlife Survey Protocols, Wyoming High Plains District – Newcastle Field Office (BLM/WY/PL-11/013+6501). U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management. Newcastle, Wyoming. Call, M.W. 1978. Nesting habitats and surveying techniques for common western raptors. BLM Technical Note TN-316, BLM Denver Service Center, Co. 115 pp. Romin, L.A., and J.A. Muck. 2002. Utah Field Office guidelines for raptor protection from human and land use disturbances. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Utah Field Office, Salt Lake City, UT. 42 pp.

Exhibit D-6 Appendix 9

APPENDIX 9—EXCEPTION, MODIFICATION, AND WAIVER CRITERIA

PROCEDURES FOR HANDLING REQUESTS FOR EXCEPTION FROM SEASONAL STIPULATIONS AND/OR CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL

The Bureau of Land Management (BLM) will process requests for exceptions, modifications, and waivers. Coordination with Wyoming Game and Fish Department (WGFD) will occur. A request for exceptions must be initiated in writing by the operator near the time that the work is proposed to be completed. The unpredictability of weather, animal movement and condition, etc., precludes analysis of requests related to wildlife far in advance of the time periods in question. Analyses of a request include review of potential mitigation measures and alternatives (traffic restrictions, alternative scheduling, staged activity, etc.). The request is considered as a unique action and is analyzed and documented individually for Resource Management Plan (RMP) and National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) compliance. Processing includes coordination with the WGFD for seasonal wildlife-based lease stipulations or permit Conditions of Approval (COA).

CRITERIA FOR CONSIDERING EXCEPTIONS TO SEASONAL RESTRICTED ACTIVITY

Presently, land use activities within the Resource Management Plan Planning Area (RMPPA) may be authorized with a seasonal restriction(s), “no surface occupancy,” or a distance restriction for sensitive and crucial habitats. Stipulations were developed to provide protection of natural resources. Protective wildlife seasonal stipulations are developed consistent with statewide dates. For example, big game crucial winter ranges are protected from November 15 through April 30. This restriction is not intended to close an area to development but is in place to protect big game if weather or other habitat needs dictate that it is necessary.

Over the past few years, the public has gained the impression that crucial winter ranges are off limits to any activity. This is true only when conditions dictate. BLM can and does grant exceptions to seasonal restrictions if BLM, in consultation with the WGFD, feels that granting an exception would not jeopardize the wildlife population being protected. BLM uses a set of criteria when considering a request for an exception. Professional judgment plays a key part in BLM’s decision to grant or not grant exception(s). There is no clear-cut formula.

Approximately 3,686,020 acres of federal land in the resource area currently have some type of lease stipulation. This section describes some of the factors considered by BLM in determining whether a request for exception should be granted.

Big Game Winter Ranges

The criteria used for crucial big game winter range are based on the area available, whether that area is relatively intact, and whether it has a history of wintering most of the population at adequate body conditions for 8 or more years out of 10. The most crucial time period in the RMPPA is usually January 1–March 15, and during this period, the restrictions are generally enforced. However, during the

Record of Decision and Approved Rawlins Resource Management Plan A9-1 Appendix 9 remaining time in the standard statewide stipulation, the authorizing officer is allowed the option to enforce a longer seasonal restriction if winter conditions warrant.

General Considerations for Granting Exceptions to Stipulations

Elk

Short-term exceptions are more likely to be considered early (November 15–December 1) and late (April 1–30) in the winter season, depending on weather conditions and animal occupancy. Exceptions would not be granted if requested from December 1–April 1 unless unusually mild winter conditions prevail. Exceptions to stipulated elk calving areas’ dates (May 1–June 30) will not be granted because of elk sensitivity to disturbance. Displacement in open habitats is much greater than in woodlots or forests; hence restricted areas will encompass larger areas in open habitat.

Moose

Exceptions will depend on weather conditions and presence of animals.

Moose habitat is given protection through riparian and stream buffer zone stipulations (500 feet from live water and riparian habitats).

Pronghorn

Exceptions may be granted except where physical barriers (highways, fences, rivers, canyons, etc.) limit animals’ ability to move into other suitable habitats. Short-term exceptions may be granted early (November 15–December 1) and late (April 1–30) depending on weather conditions and animal occupancy. Exceptions would not be granted if requested from December 1–April 1 unless unusually mild winter conditions prevailed.

Deer

Short-term exceptions may be granted early (November 15–December 1) and late (April 1–30) depending on weather conditions and animal occupancy. Exceptions would not be granted if requested from December 1–April 1 unless unusually mild winter conditions prevail.

Raptors

The “no surface occupancy” stipulation of February 1–July 31 within ½ or 1 mile of raptor nests may be shortened, depending on nesting chronology of individual species, nest site location, and topography. Certain types of short-term, minor disruptive land use activities that are not anticipated to affect nesting success may be granted.

Columbian Sharp-tailed and Greater Sage-Grouse

Surface disturbance or occupancy within one-quarter mile of the perimeter of occupied greater sage- grouse and Columbian sharp-tailed grouse is prohibited. A “controlled surface use” stipulation will be applied to a one-half mile radius of active sage-grouse strutting grounds, including no aboveground facilities (power lines. storage tanks, fences, etc.). Exceptions may be granted for disturbances, such as low-traffic roads, pipelines, seismic activity, etc. A controlled surface use stipulation will be applied for the purpose of avoiding human activity between 6 p.m. and 9 a.m. from March 1–May 20 within one- quarter mile of the perimeter of occupied grouse leks. Weather conditions, such as fog and cloudy

A9-2 Record of Decision and Approved Rawlins Resource Management Plan Appendix 9 conditions or clear, bright moonlit nights, can result in modification of the actual timing of this stipulation. Seasonal restrictions will be applied within 2 miles of greater sage-grouse leks and 1 mile of Columbian sharp-tailed leks to protect nesting and early brood-rearing habitats. Upon identification and mapping of nesting habitat, Rawlins Field Office (RFO) will apply appropriate stipulations or COA for these habitats beyond the 2-mile radius. Exceptions can be granted for areas within that radius not used for nesting, provided actual nesting areas are not affected. These time and date stipulations reflect recommendations from WGFD based on site-specific data for the RMPPA.

The following information will be considered regarding possible exceptions to stipulations protecting Columbian sharp-tailed and greater sage-grouse during sensitive life cycles.

BLM will consider, but is not limited to, the following information in determining exceptions for projects located in the vicinity of leks:

• Presence of early lek activity (activity outside stipulated timing restrictions) • Lek that has been active in the past few years • Location of proposed activity • Duration of proposed project • Possible geographic feature that would shield activity from lek activity (depending on topography and activity type).

BLM will consider, but is not limited to, the following information in determining exceptions for projects located in the vicinity of nesting activity:

• Presence of nesting habitat • Location of proposed project • Duration of proposed project • Possible geographic feature that would shield activity from nesting activity (depending on topography and activity type).

The final determination for granting an exception to wildlife stipulations will be a decision by BLM after consultation with the WGFD.

These procedures will be used for any request for exception for a surface disturbing activity.

MODIFICATION OR WAIVER OF LEASE TERMS OR STIPULATIONS

“A stipulation included in an oil and gas lease shall be subject to modification or waiver only if the authorized officer determines that the factors leading to its inclusion in the lease have changed sufficiently to make the protection provided by the stipulation no longer justified or if proposed operations would not cause unacceptable impacts. If the authorized officer has determined, prior to lease issuance, that a stipulation involves an issue of major concern to the public, modification or waiver of the stipulation shall be subject to public review for at least a 30 day period. In such cases, the stipulation shall indicate that public review is required before modification or waiver. If subsequent to lease issuance the authorized officer determines that a modification or waiver of a lease term or stipulation is substantial, the modification or waiver shall be subject to public review for at least a 30-day period.” (43 CFR 3101.1-4)

Record of Decision and Approved Rawlins Resource Management Plan A9-3 Appendix 9

The modification or waiver of an oil and gas lease term implies that the sensitive resource for which the protective measure was considered is in some way not present in the area or in some way is no longer in need of the protective measure. In either case, consideration of a modification or waiver of a lease stipulation would require environmental analysis and may result in an amendment to the land use plan.

A9-4 Record of Decision and Approved Rawlins Resource Management Plan Attachment D Migratory Bird Nest Management, Monitoring, and Reporting Plan THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK

Table of Contents

D1.1 Introduction ...... D-1 D1.1.1 Scope ...... D-1 D1.1.2 Taxonomic Considerations ...... D-2 D1.1.3 Regulatory Need ...... D-2 D1.1.4 Request for Adaptive Management ...... D-2 D1.1.5 Objectives ...... D-3 D1.2 Initial Plan Implementation ...... D-3 D1.2.2 Environment and Safety Training Program ...... D-3 D1.2.3 Methods to Avoid or Minimize Impacts on Nesting Birds to Be Taken Outside the Nesting Season...... D-4 D1.3 Roles and Responsibilities ...... D-4 D1.3.1 Supervisory Avian Biologist ...... D-5 D1.3.2 Avian Biologists ...... D-5 D1.3.3 Environmental Inspectors ...... D-6 D1.3.4 Construction Contractor(s) ...... D-6 D1.4 Nest Survey Protocol ...... D-7 D1.4.2 Nest Survey Overview and Scheduling ...... D-8 D1.4.3 Nest Survey Methods ...... D-9 D1.5 Guidelines for Establishing Buffer Zones ...... D-11 D1.5.2 Buffer Zone Radius by Species and Species Groups ...... D-11 D1.5.3 Determination of Nest Buffer Variance ...... D-12 D1.5.4 Types of Buffer Zones ...... D-13 D1.5.5 Avian Behavior Suggesting Disturbance ...... D-13 D1.5.6 Awareness and Identification of Buffer Zones ...... D-13 D1.5.7 Termination of Buffer Zones ...... D-14 D1.6 Nest Monitoring Protocol ...... D-14 D1.6.2 Monitoring Nests Located High in Vegetation or Structures ...... D-14 D1.6.3 Monitoring with Remote Observations ...... D-15 D1.6.4 Termination of Nest Monitoring Activities ...... D-15 D1.7 Measures to Avoid, Minimize, or Deter Project Impacts on Nesting Birds ...... D-15 D1.7.2 Deterrent Methods to Prevent Birds from Nesting on Project-Related Structures, Facilities, and Equipment ...... D-15 D1.7.3 Accidental Nest Destruction ...... D-16 D1.8 Documentation and Reporting ...... D-17 D1.8.2 Twice-monthly Nest Reports and Summary ...... D-17 D1.8.3 Annual Report on Nest Discovery, Monitoring, and Avoidance/Minimization Activities ...... D-17 D1.9 Glossary of Terms ...... D-18 D1.10 Literature Cited ...... D-19

Energy Gateway South Transmission Project Attachment D-i Plan of Development Appendix B1 – Biological Resources Conservation Plan November 2016 Attachment D – Migratory Bird Nest Management, Monitoring, and Reporting Plan Exhibit A – Bird Species Not Protected by the Migratory Bird Treaty Act and that May Nest in the Project Area Exhibit B – Recommended Nest Buffer Zone Guidelines for Bird Species Known or Suspected to Occur in the Project Area Exhibit C – Bird Species Designated as Sensitive or of Special Concern Thought to Nest or that May Nest in the Project Area Exhibit D – Decision Protocol for Onsite Determination of Buffer Variance

Energy Gateway South Transmission Project Attachment D-ii Plan of Development Appendix B1 – Biological Resources Conservation Plan November 2016 Attachment D – Migratory Bird Nest Management, Monitoring, and Reporting Plan

List of Acronyms

BIA Bureau of Indian Affairs BLM Bureau of Land Management

CFR Code of Federal Regulations CIC Compliance Inspection Contractor Company PacifiCorp

EIS Environmental impact statement ESA Endangered Species Act of 1973

FWS U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service

MBTA Migratory Bird Treaty Act

POD Plan of Development Project Energy Gateway South Transmission Project

USFS U.S. Forest Service

Energy Gateway South Transmission Project Attachment D-iii Plan of Development Appendix B1 – Biological Resources Conservation Plan November 2016 Attachment D – Migratory Bird Nest Management, Monitoring, and Reporting Plan

THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK

ATTACHMENT D – MIGRATORY BIRD NEST MANAGEMENT, MONITORING, AND REPORTING PLAN

D1.1 Introduction This Migratory Bird Nest Management, Monitoring, and Reporting Plan outlines the steps to be taken by PacifiCorp (Company) and its contractors and subcontractors to avoid or minimize impacts on nesting birds during construction of the Energy Gateway South Transmission Project (Project). The Project calls for the construction of an electrical transmission line through Wyoming, Colorado, and Utah. The goals, environmental requirements, regulations, scope, and proposed timing of the Project have been specified in the Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) and Section 4.3.9 – Migratory Birds and Section B1.3.7 – Migratory Birds of the Plan of Development (POD).

D1.1.1 Scope This plan applies only to nonraptorial bird species that are protected under the Migratory Bird Treaty Act (MBTA) and those species known or suspected to nest in the various habitats where Project construction will occur. Bird species listed as threatened or endangered under the protection of the Endangered Species Act (ESA) or are candidate species for listing also are not included in this plan (yellow-billed cuckoo and Mexican spotted owl) but are treated separately in Appendix B1 – Biological Resources Conservation Plan. Likewise, the mountain plover and greater sage-grouse, both federal and state-sensitive species, have been discussed in Appendix B1 – Biological Resources Conservation Plan and so are not discussed here. The Project will not occur in any known nesting areas for the Columbian sharp-tailed grouse (another federal- and state-sensitive species) by design, and the possibility of and potential action resulting from its unanticipated occurrence in or immediately adjacent to the approved work area of the Project has been discussed elsewhere.

This plan was developed in response to specific requirements of the MBTA in coordination with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) and is consistent with guidelines provided in Migratory Bird Conservation Actions for Projects to Reduce the Risk of Take during the Nesting Season (FWS 2014). It applies to birds nesting on all types of land ownership and management across the entire Project area. The provisions of this plan apply only to the construction phase of the Project; responsibilities of the Company to avoid take and meet its obligations under the MBTA during maintenance activities have been identified elsewhere (Appendix A6 – Operations and Maintenance Plan).

The six upland game bird species (excluding Columbian sharp-tailed grouse and greater sage-grouse) not specifically protected by the MBTA but regulated by Wyoming, Colorado, and Utah that may be encountered during Project construction will be subject to avoidance and minimization requirements described in this plan. These species are identified in Exhibit A – Bird Species Not Protected by the Migratory Bird Treaty Act and that May Nest in the Project Area and were discussed in Sections 3.2.7 and 3.2.8 of the EIS. The four species not protected by the MBTA and not regulated by Wyoming, Colorado, and Utah (Exhibit A – Bird Species Not Protected by the Migratory Bird Treaty Act and that May Nest in the Project Area) will not be subject to avoidance and minimization requirements.

Energy Gateway South Transmission Project Attachment D-1 Plan of Development Appendix B1 – Biological Resources Conservation Plan November 2016 Attachment D – Migratory Bird Nest Management, Monitoring, and Reporting Plan

D1.1.2 Taxonomic Considerations Common names for bird species conform to those sanctioned by the American Ornithologists Union (www.americanornithology.org) and are listed in taxonomic order, not alphabetical order, because taxonomic groupings of related bird species will be the basis for determining buffer zone size (with exceptions) in this plan.

D1.1.3 Regulatory Need This plan will help the Project conform to the stipulations of the MBTA of 1918 (as amended) and avoid take during construction operations. Section 703 of the MBTA states that:

Unless and except as permitted by regulations made as hereafter provided in this subchapter, it shall be unlawful at any time, by any means or in any matter, to pursue, hunt, take, capture, or kill … any migratory bird, any part, nest, or egg of any such bird. … This law only applies to migratory bird species that are native to the United States or its territories.

The MBTA protects migratory birds under 50 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) 10.12, and the FWS maintains a list of all birds protected by the MBTA under 50 CFR 10.13. Executive Order 13186 emphasizes the importance of MBTA adherence by federal agencies.

The FWS issued an MBTA policy guidance document (April 15, 2003) stating that it contains no prohibition applying to the destruction of a nest alone (without eggs or nestlings), provided that no possession occurs during the destruction and that no eagle nests or nests of ESA-listed species are destroyed.

D1.1.4 Request for Adaptive Management This plan was developed in response to specific requirements of the MBTA with the guidance of the appropriate regulatory agencies. Nevertheless, events may occur such that the plan could or should be modified in response to changing conditions or unforeseen circumstances without causing undue harm or risk to nesting birds. Therefore, adaptive management is called for due to the dynamic nature of some aspects of both this Plan and the Project.

The involved agencies and the Company should re-evaluate the conditions and requirements of this Plan thought to be in need of modification at predesignated times for the duration of the Project. Recommended timing of these re-evaluation events are presented in Table 1.

TABLE 1 RECOMMENDED TIMING OF RE-EVALUATION EVENTS Event Initiating Re-Evaluation Anticipated Date Approval of final Project engineering plans Unknown Completion of final report presenting results of preconstruction wildlife surveys Unknown Completion of annual final reports on migratory bird nest surveys and activities Annually during each year of Project construction until completion Other events as identified in the process of reviewing and finalizing this draft Plan Unknown Modification to any actions, measures, protocols, or requirements of this plan can only take place with the approval of the applicable resource agencies. Modifications potentially could include one or more of the following plan elements: pre-survey avoidance and minimization methods and timing, deterrents to nesting, survey protocol methods and timing, buffer zone application and timing, criteria relating to

Energy Gateway South Transmission Project Attachment D-2 Plan of Development Appendix B1 – Biological Resources Conservation Plan November 2016 Attachment D – Migratory Bird Nest Management, Monitoring, and Reporting Plan

termination of nest monitoring activities, or any other unanticipated issues regarding nesting birds and how the plan and the Project will comply with state and federal laws. The beginning and ending dates of the bird nesting season when nest surveys are required in areas adjacent to the Project may vary based on climatic or other variables. In this case, survey dates might be adjusted but only with the knowledge and approval of the appropriate regulatory agencies

D1.1.5 Objectives Plan objectives include the following:

 Describe methods to avoid or minimize impacts on nesting birds outside of the nesting season.  Identify the roles and responsibilities of the various parties involved with the implementation of the plan.  Identify survey protocols to be used to locate active nests.  Specify guidelines for establishing buffer zones around active nests.  Establish a decision protocol to identify whether a variance to a recommended buffer zone is appropriate in a specific situation.  Identify nest monitoring protocols for active nests for which a buffer zone is established.  Identify measures to avoid, minimize, or deter Project impacts on nesting birds.  Identify the schedule and scope of interim and final reports to be provided to the Bureau of Land Management (BLM), FWS, U.S. Forest Service (USFS), and Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA).

D1.2 Initial Plan Implementation D1.2.1 Existing Avian Resources and Knowledge Generalized references identify those species of nesting birds that can be found in Wyoming, Colorado, and Utah where the Project is to occur. For Wyoming, the Birds of Wyoming (Faulkner 2012) is the most recent reference. The Rocky Mountain Bird Observatory maintains a comprehensive database on the nesting birds of both Wyoming and Colorado (http://www.rmbo.org/v2/web/science/bpm_state_wy.aspx) in areas where the Project is expected to occur. For Colorado, primary references include Andrews and Righter (1992), Kingery (1998), and Righter et al. (2004). For Utah, these include Behle (1958), Behle and Perry (1975), Hayward et al. (1976), Ryser (1985), the Checklist of the Birds of Utah for March 2015 compiled by the Utah Birds Records Committee (http://www.utahbirds.org/checklistUtah.htm), and other local and regional sources.

Species-specific information on nesting season start and end dates is available from these references and from local and regional records maintained by land-management agencies. Likewise, species-specific information on nesting habitat use is also available from these sources. Together, this information will form the basis for several aspects of Section 1.4 – Nest Survey Protocol.

D1.2.2 Environment and Safety Training Program All personnel involved in Project construction, logistics, and planning will be required to attend an environmental and safety training (refer to Design Feature 28 in Table 4-1 – Design Features of the Project for Environmental Protection of Section 4 – Environmental Setting, Issues, and Mitigation Measures and Appendix A4 – Environmental and Safety Training Plan). The training session will include an overview of this plan, including (1) how the plan is designed to avoid or minimize potential impacts on nesting birds; (2) how aspects of the plan might influence construction activities and scheduling; and (3) how communication between the Company/Construction Contractor(s) and their Avian Biologists and Environmental Inspectors will function effectively. The importance of nesting birds as a sensitive

Energy Gateway South Transmission Project Attachment D-3 Plan of Development Appendix B1 – Biological Resources Conservation Plan November 2016 Attachment D – Migratory Bird Nest Management, Monitoring, and Reporting Plan

ecological resource will be identified. A discussion will be held explaining how federal and state regulations (e.g., MBTA) for the protection of nesting birds has resulted in the need for the plan, and how compliance with the plan is important to the Project.

D1.2.3 Methods to Avoid or Minimize Impacts on Nesting Birds to Be Taken Outside the Nesting Season Vegetation clearing (habitat removal) outside of the nesting season is the first and perhaps the most important of many steps that will be taken to avoid or minimize negative impacts on nesting birds (FWS 2014; refer to Design Feature 6 in Table 4-1 – Design Features of the Project for Environmental Protection of Section 4 – Environmental Setting, Issues, and Mitigation Measures and Appendix A4 – Environmental and Safety Training Plan). To the extent possible given climatic and other environmental conditions, the Project work, access, and staging areas approved for construction activities will be cleared of vegetation in the non-nesting season to remove potential nesting habitat as specified in Design Feature 6. This will reduce potential conflicts between Project activities and nesting birds once the nesting season begins. Particular emphasis should focus on vegetation clearing prior to the nesting season in and adjacent to riparian and wetland habitats because of the disproportionately large number of nests likely to occur in those areas. Vegetation clearing outside of the bird nesting season may be constrained by seasonal restrictions for other resources, such as mule deer winter range or other sensitive resource concerns, including sensitive or erosive soils.

Avoiding vegetation clearing and other construction and maintenance activities will limit effects on areas with nesting birds during the migratory bird nesting season, when possible, between February 1 and August 31; however, dates may vary depending on species, current environmental conditions, results of preconstruction surveys, and approval by agency biologists or agency-approved environmental inspectors in coordination with agency biologists.

Vegetation clearing and removal will occur only in the footprint of approved work areas, and excessive habitat removal will be avoided and will be limited to only clearing and removal that is necessary to provide essential access and a safe work environment. Habitats exhibiting vegetation of low stature (e.g., grassland and some shrubland with vegetation heights of less than approximately three feet) within approved work areas should not be cleared and removed to the point where only bare soil remains unless there is a compelling reason for doing so.

As much of the actual construction of the Project infrastructure as possible should occur outside of the nesting season dates identified in this plan. This will serve to avoid delays in Project construction due to the designation of no-work buffer zones around active nests during the nesting season.

D1.3 Roles and Responsibilities The various parties involved with the implementation of the plan include the Company and all of its Construction Contractor(s) and subcontractors, the BLM, the USFS, the BIA, and the FWS. A description of the roles and responsibilities of the Company, federal agencies (including the Construction Inspection Contractor [CIC]), and the Construction Contractor(s) are outlined in Section A5.3 – Roles and Responsibilities of Appendix A5 – Environmental Compliance Management Plan.

The responsibilities of the four primary roles (Supervisor Avian Biologist, Avian Biologist, Environmental Inspector, and Construction Contractor[s]) involved in the implementation of this plan along the Project route are identified in the following sections. The Construction Contractor(s) will employ or contract the Supervisory Avian Biologist, Avian Biologists, and Environmental Inspectors.

Energy Gateway South Transmission Project Attachment D-4 Plan of Development Appendix B1 – Biological Resources Conservation Plan November 2016 Attachment D – Migratory Bird Nest Management, Monitoring, and Reporting Plan

Reporting procedures from the Environmental Inspector to the Company, CIC, and federal agencies will follow the procedures identified in Section A5.3 – Roles and Responsibilities of Appendix A5 – Environmental Compliance Management Plan.

D1.3.1 Supervisory Avian Biologist The individual designated as Supervisory Avian Biologist must be an avian ecologist and ornithologist who must be highly experienced in the following topics: (1) identification of nesting bird species in the Project area; (2) habitat and other nesting requirements of those bird species; (3) techniques employed to search for, discover, document, and monitor active bird nests; (4) avian behavior at and near active nests; (5) avian behavior suggesting anthropogenic nest disturbance; (6) supervision of a field crew; (7) field data management and archiving; and (8) report writing. This person should have at least a master’s degree in wildlife biology or ecology and should be a recognized authority in avian nesting ecology. Responsibilities of the Supervisory Avian Biologist include the following:

 Submit names to the BLM, USFS, BIA, and FWS of all Avian Biologists to be conducting nest surveys.

 Ensure all elements of this plan are successfully implemented.

 Oversee and coordinate the activities of all Avian Biologists.

 Coordinate, design, and participate in field surveys for nesting birds.

 Conduct training classes for Avian Biologists and Environmental Inspectors on advanced nest searching techniques, nest data management, buffer zone establishment, and best management practices for nest monitoring activities.

 Ensure quality assurance and quality control for all aspects of this plan.

 Develop, maintain, and update the nesting bird database.

 Prepare and submit all reports identified by the plan.

 Coordinate and provide recommendations to the lead BLM biologist so the BLM can make any necessary final decisions.

D1.3.2 Avian Biologists Field surveys for nesting birds will be conducted by Avian Biologists who are experienced in the identification (visual and vocal) of bird species anticipated to occur in the Project area. Avian Biologists will be familiar with nesting requirements of regional birds and with techniques employed to discover active nests. Names of all Avian Biologists to be conducting nest surveys will be provided to the BLM, USFS, BIA, and FWS prior to work in the nesting bird season. Their responsibilities include the following:

 Conduct nest surveys and identify active nests.

 Record nest data on survey forms, enter this data and associated buffer zone actions into the digitized database, and upload this database on a daily basis for archiving.

 Install flagging and signs to physically establish the boundaries of buffer zones around active nests as identified in this Plan.

 Recommend additional actions to reduce potential disturbance to active nests, as needed.

Energy Gateway South Transmission Project Attachment D-5 Plan of Development Appendix B1 – Biological Resources Conservation Plan November 2016 Attachment D – Migratory Bird Nest Management, Monitoring, and Reporting Plan

 Determine if and when the nesting cycle for a given nest is completed or closed and monitoring can be terminated, or when construction adjacent to a nest buffer zone is completed and monitoring can be terminated, based on their personal observations or those of the Environmental Inspector.

 Determine the outcome of nesting attempts, if possible, or nest condition at time of termination of monitoring.

 Remove flagging and signs from buffer zone around a completed or closed nest.

 Communicate and coordinate with the Supervisory Avian Biologist and Environmental Inspector regarding any serious conflicts, problems, questions, or unusual nesting activity.

D1.3.3 Environmental Inspectors Environmental Inspectors will have, as pertains only to this plan, biological training and some experience with regional birds and their nesting habits. Their responsibilities include the following:

 Conduct the environmental and safety training program for the Construction Contractor(s).

 Assume role of primary interface between Supervisory Avian Biologist/Avian Biologists and the Construction Contractor(s) and Construction Inspection Contractor.

 Conduct daily nest surveys for additional or new nests in the immediate work areas prior to and during construction activities, as directed or supervised by Avian Biologists.

 Monitor construction activities adjacent to active nests and ensure that buffer zone guidelines are adhered to, as directed to or supervised by Avian Biologists.

 Communicate on a daily basis with Avian Biologists regarding bird behavior and new nests.

 If needed, install new or replacement flagging and signage around an active nest to establish or re-establish the boundaries of a buffer zone as directed by Avian Biologists.

 If needed, conduct nest monitoring as directed by Avian Biologists.

 If needed, notify Avian Biologists that all construction activities have been terminated in a particular Project sector so that nest monitoring and buffer zones there can cease.

 Assume responsibility for reporting any accidental nest damage or destruction due to Project activity to the Construction Contractor’s Environmental Manager (refer to Section D1.7.3 – Accidental Nest Destruction).

D1.3.4 Construction Contractor(s) Responsibilities of the Construction Contractor(s) include the following:

 Attend the environmental and safety training program.

 Provide Environmental Inspectors with a schedule and time line of all activities along the Project route, including vegetation clearing and construction that will occur in the nesting season. This schedule and time line will be provided in a manner such that Environmental Inspectors can inform Avian Biologists in advance when and where to conduct nesting surveys. This schedule will be provided 10 to 14 days in advance of Project activities.

 Provide Environmental Inspectors with location and scheduling of all anticipated helicopter use in the approved work area or 300 feet adjacent to it or along any portion of the approach flight path

Energy Gateway South Transmission Project Attachment D-6 Plan of Development Appendix B1 – Biological Resources Conservation Plan November 2016 Attachment D – Migratory Bird Nest Management, Monitoring, and Reporting Plan

occurring at or below 100 feet above ground level. This notification will occur within 3 days of the anticipated activity.

 Understand and adhere to buffer zone guidelines for the protection of bird nests that will be explained during the environment and safety training program. The Construction Contractor(s) will be provided with written buffer zone guidelines for future reference.

 Have a copy of the buffer zone guidelines visibly displayed in every Project-related vehicle of any type operating in approved work areas.

 If the Construction Contractor(s) encounter an active nest that was not previously discovered by either Avian Biologists or Environmental Inspectors, cease all construction within 300 feet of the nest and immediately contact an Environmental Inspector so an Avian Biologist can document the nest and determine the appropriate action and/or buffer zone.

 If the Construction Contractor(s) becomes aware that an active nest has been damaged or destroyed by any Project activity, all construction within 300 feet of the nest location will cease and an Environmental Inspector will be notified immediately who will document the incident with the assistance of an Avian Biologist. An Environmental Inspector will notify the Construction Contractor’s Environmental Manager, who will notify the CIC, who will then notify the agencies (BLM, USFS, BIA, and FWS) of the incident within 24 hours via email or text messaging.

 Provide a bucket truck to allow inspection of nests on telephone poles, transmission towers, billboards, and other structures or trees more than 15 feet in height when these nest substrates are within approximately 100 feet of an approved work area. An Environmental Inspector will request a bucket truck for the inspection of nests only in areas that are immediately adjacent to reasonable road access. Bucket trucks should never be employed as a nest inspection platform if their use will constitute a safety risk to Avian Biologists, Environmental Inspectors, or the Construction Contractor(s).

D1.4 Nest Survey Protocol D1.4.1 Time Frame of Nest Surveys and Monitoring For the purposes of this Plan, the nesting season is that period of time when eggs or nestlings are present in an active nest (refer to Section D1.9 – Glossary of Terms, Phenology, for the full scientific definition of the nesting season). The beginning and end of the nesting season will vary by elevation, annual variations in climatic conditions, and other environmental variables. Nesting season dates for the Project area are readily available in the scientific and regulatory literature. Information on these dates has been obtained from sources listed in Section D1.2.1 – Existing Avian Resources and Knowledge (primarily Kingery 1998) and from The Birds of North America series (www.bna.birds.cornell.edu/bna/).

Raptors along the Project route may initiate nesting activities as early as February 1. This plan does not address nesting raptors, nor does it address other ESA-protected and sensitive species that also may initiate nesting prior to the first day of spring. Species addressed in this plan typically do not initiate nesting until after the first day of spring.

In general, bird species addressed in this plan and likely to nest along the Project route will initiate and then terminate nesting several weeks earlier at lower elevations than at higher elevations due to orographic effects that result in different climatic regimes in valley versus mountain situations. Nevertheless, certain exceptions do occur and these exceptions have been incorporated into assumed nesting season dates for higher and lower elevation zones.

Energy Gateway South Transmission Project Attachment D-7 Plan of Development Appendix B1 – Biological Resources Conservation Plan November 2016 Attachment D – Migratory Bird Nest Management, Monitoring, and Reporting Plan

Elevations along the Project route range from more than 4,000 feet to almost 10,000 feet. The midpoint of this range is about 7,000 feet, which is also the average elevation separating lower, more open habitats from higher, more wooded and forested habitats. The majority of the Project route will be at elevations below 7,000 feet. Accordingly, nonraptorial nesting season dates for these two generalized elevation and habitat zones are as follows:

 Below 7,000 feet. Nesting season dates are assumed to be from April 1 to August 15. Surveys to locate new nests (refer to Section D1.4.2 – Nest Survey Methods) will terminate on July 31, and any known nests still active on that date will continue to be monitored until August 15 (or later if necessary) by Avian Biologists and Environmental Inspectors. It is extremely unlikely that new nests will be initiated after August 1.

 Above 7,000 feet. Nesting season dates are assumed to be from May 15 to August 31. Surveys to locate new nests will terminate on August 15, and any known nests still active on that date will continue to be monitored until August 31 (or later if necessary) by Avian Biologists and Environmental Inspectors. It is extremely unlikely that new nests will be initiated after August 15. It is also unlikely that most Project activities above 7,000 feet can begin as early as May 15 due to access issues resulting from mud and snow. Any Project-related vegetation clearing (habitat removal) or construction activities that will occur during the specified nesting season at the specified elevation will require nest surveys as described in this plan. Nest surveys will not be needed within buffers that have been previously established for the protection of other resources and overlap with the nesting season (refer to Section D1.5.4 – Types of Buffer Zones).

D1.4.2 Nest Survey Overview and Scheduling This protocol specifies survey activities and sequence of events for (1) initial vegetation clearing (habitat removal) of approved work areas during the nesting season and (2) post-vegetation-clearing construction activities during the nesting season. This will facilitate the necessary communication between the Company/Construction Contractor(s), Environmental Inspectors, and Avian Biologists with regard to all matters concerning nest surveys, nest monitoring, buffer zone establishment, and reporting nest data/observations.

 If initial vegetation clearing (habitat removal) of approved work areas occurs in the nesting season (FWS 2014; refer to Section D1.4.1 – Time Frame of Nest Surveys and Monitoring for nesting season dates at different elevations), nest surveys will be conducted by Avian Biologists in the approved work areas plus a 300-foot-wide area adjacent to it on both (or all) sides. These surveys will be conducted no more than 7 days prior to starting vegetation clearing activities, as specified in Design Feature 7 (refer to B1.4.5). If vegetation clearing activities are not started within 7 days of completed nest surveys, another nest survey of the area proposed for clearing activities will occur. If unanticipated vegetation clearing is necessary on short notice, a single nest survey of the approved work area and a 300-foot adjacent area must be completed no more than 3 days prior. Unanticipated vegetation clearing will be of limited extent and occur infrequently.

 If construction activities occur in approved work areas that have already been cleared of vegetation (habitat has been removed) in the nesting season, then nest surveys will be conducted by Avian Biologists in the 300-foot-wide area adjacent to it on both sides. These surveys will be conducted no more than 7 days prior to starting construction activities. If construction is not started within 7 days of completed nest surveys, another nest survey of the area proposed for construction will occur. If unanticipated construction is necessary on short notice, a single nest survey of the approved work area and 300-foot adjacent area must be completed no more than 3 days prior. Unanticipated construction will be of limited extent and occur infrequently.

Energy Gateway South Transmission Project Attachment D-8 Plan of Development Appendix B1 – Biological Resources Conservation Plan November 2016 Attachment D – Migratory Bird Nest Management, Monitoring, and Reporting Plan

 The BLM, USFS, and BIA will be notified of all nest discovery locations from April 1 to August 31 in a nest survey and monitoring report that will be provided in a twice-monthly report to the point of contact (to be designated in the POD) with the BLM, USFS, and BIA.

 Nest surveys (including adjacent 300-foot-wide areas) will occur in all locations where Project activities take place during the nesting season. This includes approved work areas where vegetation clearing or construction is taking place and also includes , but is not limited to, pole installation work areas, substation sites, staging areas, and access roads.

 Nest surveys will not be conducted along existing access roads that will only be used for drive- through access and that are actively used by the public, private landowners, and/or land- management personnel. Roads that require grading, widening or ground disturbance, or vegetation clearing or that will be used for parking or staging during the nesting season will be surveyed according to this plan.

 Helicopter operations at or below 100 feet above ground level should be avoided if possible. Downward rotor wash from helicopter operations can produce temporary gusts of wind exceeding 40 miles per hour and gusts that have the potential to damage or destroy nests or negatively affect bird nesting behavior. If any helicopter operations are to occur within 100 feet above ground level or if landing areas or pads will be designated for more than one use, then nest surveys of these areas or along any portion of the approach flight path will be initiated out to the standard 300 foot distance. The Company/Construction Contractor(s) will inform the Environmental Inspectors of the location and timing of low-level helicopter operations by or before 3 days of the anticipated activity. Site-specific modifications to the survey area may be appropriate to account for landscape and topography features that naturally buffer avian species from construction activities. In these instances, modifications to the survey areas will be made by the on-site Avian Biologist and details will be provided in the nest survey and monitoring reports. Avian Biologists will consider the potential for impacts on nests created by down wash, rotor wash, vibration, disturbance from above for elevated nests, and other helicopter-related disturbances when determining avoidance and minimization recommendations.

D1.4.3 Nest Survey Methods Nest surveys (searches for active nests) will be conducted using techniques described in the Handbook of Field Methods for Monitoring Landbirds (Ralph et al. 1993). These techniques call for the use of visual and auditory cues to find nests in all possible situations (ground, cavity, cliff, vegetation, and bridge or structural).

 Nest surveys will be conducted by teams of two or more Avian Biologists for reasons of safety and efficiency, although one Avian Biologist may be adequate to conduct nest surveys in some situations. The survey team will walk slowly and systematically along transects through the entire survey area to ensure that complete coverage of all potential nest sites has occurred. Each member of the survey team will have a radio for communication and coordination while walking the survey transects. Some surveys may be conducted more efficiently by sitting or standing at selected vantage points and observing bird activity and behavior. Spacing between Avian Biologists walking the transects will vary depending on vegetation density, with wider spacing in grassland or open habitats and closer spacing in forest, woodland, or shrubland habitats.

 Nest surveys will not be conducted in inclement weather, such as extremely cold temperatures, heavy or steady rainfall, snowfall, or hail, or sustained high-wind conditions. Inclement weather will not only interfere with observer ability to see bird behavior and visually locate nests, but nest surveys at times of inclement weather may accidentally cause incubating or brooding adult birds

Energy Gateway South Transmission Project Attachment D-9 Plan of Development Appendix B1 – Biological Resources Conservation Plan November 2016 Attachment D – Migratory Bird Nest Management, Monitoring, and Reporting Plan

to leave nests at times when eggs and nestlings are most vulnerable to exposure and resulting mortality.

 The amount of time to conduct thorough nest surveys will vary by location, depending primarily on vegetation density and canopy height, and secondarily on bird behavior. More open habitats such as playa, grassland, and open steppe or savannah can be surveyed more quickly and efficiently than habitats exhibiting a greater vegetation volume, such as dense shrubland, woodland, and forest. Nest survey search time will be capped at 4 person-hours per acre in extremely dense habitats exhibiting high foliage volumes. Person-hours per acre of nest survey search time in open habitats are expected to be much less.

 Avian Biologists may determine that an active nest is present based on bird behavior without actually locating or directly observing a nest. Some nest locations are inaccessible due to unsafe terrain, height of the nest above ground, dense vegetation, or other barrier preventing access and observation. In these instances, the appropriate buffer zone will be established, if necessary, based on the most likely nest location and this reasoning will be identified fully in the nest data log.

 Each active nest discovered will receive a unique alphanumerical designation. All data related to the nest (species, phenology, dates, times, behavior, geographical positioning system coordinates, number of eggs or nestlings) will be recorded. The presence of brown-headed cowbird eggs, if any, will be noted. All data will be provided in a twice-monthly report to the point of contact (to be designated in the POD) with the BLM, USFS, and BIA. Some of the most commonly used and effective techniques for detecting nonraptorial, active nests are as follows:

 Visually examine the ground, rocks, cliffs, vegetation, and man-made structures for nests.

 Observe adult birds for signs of breeding behavior (singing, territoriality, courtship or pair-bond behavior, copulation) and follow them to a potential nest site.

 Follow adults that are carrying nesting material, food items, or fecal sacs.

 Listen for the sound of nestlings either begging for or receiving food and proceed to the source of this calling.

 Follow adults making repeated flights to the same area.

 Pay particular attention to birds suddenly flying out of a hidden location (ground, rocks, shrubs, woodland, forest) immediately in the path of an observer and examine the location where they first appeared.

 Check tree cavities or cliff crevices for signs of use, such as whitewash or feathers.

 Monitor tree cavities for bird activity, such as food delivery or other behavior indicating the presence of an active nest.

 In grassland, playa, or open habitats with few or no shrubs, a rope held between two observers may be dragged across the search area to flush ground-nesting birds whose nests would otherwise be difficult to detect. It is not unusual to detect old nests from the previous year or abandoned nests from the current nesting season. Abandoned nests from the current season typically have bird feces or fecal sacs on the nest rim, and probably contain compacted down or contour feathers inside. Any old, abandoned, or even recently constructed nests without eggs or nestlings should be destroyed and left on-site, as allowed by FWS and as previously discussed in Section D1.1.3 – Regulatory Need. Some recently abandoned nests may still contain addled eggs, eggs that failed to hatch for a host of reasons, and dead nestlings or may exhibit

Energy Gateway South Transmission Project Attachment D-10 Plan of Development Appendix B1 – Biological Resources Conservation Plan November 2016 Attachment D – Migratory Bird Nest Management, Monitoring, and Reporting Plan

damage consistent with predation. Any nest containing eggs or live nestlings, regardless of appearance, should be treated as an active nest until an Avian Biologist determines otherwise.

All active nests detected will have their locations recorded in global positioning system coordinates in a format consistent with BLM data standards. Primary flagging designed to indicate nest presence will be placed at the work area boundary, and secondary flagging designed to assist in relocating nests for monitoring purposes will be placed between the work area boundary and the nest at an appropriate distance to avoid attracting predators to the nest (no flagging within 60 feet of an active nest). This location will ideally be where it is most efficient to make remote observations using binoculars or spotting scopes so that observer-related disturbance will be kept to a minimum during subsequent nest- monitoring activities. Flagging will be marked with the distance (feet) and compass bearing to the nest. Each nest will be photographed at least once, and perhaps as often as every time it is visited, as long as the act of obtaining the photograph is not likely to cause an incubating or brooding adult to flush from the nest.

D1.5 Guidelines for Establishing Buffer Zones D1.5.1 Justification for and Value of Buffer Zones Buffer zones are a useful and accepted management practice designed to avoid or minimize anthropogenic disturbance to active nests. Implementation of recommended buffer zones has been demonstrated to reduce the potential for human-related nest abandonment or nest failure and to minimize disruption of normal nest attendance and feeding behavior of adult birds.

D1.5.2 Buffer Zone Radius by Species and Species Groups Buffer zone radius distances have varied for linear pipeline and transmission line projects requiring a migratory bird nest management plan. The following plans are examples that were evaluated during development of this Plan:

 A plan for a North Dakota project required only a 30-foot buffer for species of special concern but left all other nest buffers at the discretion of the project biologists (Center Point Energy 2013).

 A plan prepared for a California project recommended a minimum buffer zone radius of 100 feet with provisions to decrease or increase the radius as needed to adequately protect nonraptorial nests (SHN Consulting Engineers and Geologists, Inc. 2013).

 A plan for another California project specified a 300-foot buffer zone, although environmental inspectors were allowed to determine buffer zone sizes on a case-by-case basis (San Diego Gas and Electric Company 2013). The BLM recommends a buffer zone radius of 100 to 300 feet for nests of nonraptorial species covered in a plan, based on the local experience of their biologists. The FWS and other state or federal agencies do not have any formal guidelines or regulations for the establishment of buffer zones around active nests of bird species included in this plan, although the BLM does have informal guidelines for recommending buffer zones.

Exhibit B – Recommended Nest Buffer Zone Guidelines for Bird Species Known or Suspected to Occur in the Project Area identifies the recommended buffer zone radius for all species and taxonomic groups known or suspected to occur in the Project area. The BLM guidelines have been incorporated into

Energy Gateway South Transmission Project Attachment D-11 Plan of Development Appendix B1 – Biological Resources Conservation Plan November 2016 Attachment D – Migratory Bird Nest Management, Monitoring, and Reporting Plan

Exhibit B – Recommended Nest Buffer Zone Guidelines for Bird Species Known or Suspected to Occur in the Project Area to the extent possible.

Exceptions to the BLM-recommended buffer zones have been designated when appropriate; see Exhibit B for a detailed listing. These exceptions are as follows:

 All species commonly nesting in urban, suburban, or high-intensity agricultural areas or near improvements, roads, and structures regularly experiencing substantial levels of human activity may have a 100-foot buffer zone, if this reduction is considered appropriate by the Supervisory Avian Biologist with concurrence by the federal land-management agencies’ Authorized Officers or their designated representatives. These smaller buffer zones will only be designated in areas along the Project where pre-existing substantial levels of human activity occur (e.g., urban, suburban, and agricultural areas).

 All swallows, hummingbirds, rails, and coots will have a 100-foot buffer zone.

 Cliff swallows and other species nesting on structures or under bridges that existed prior to Project activities may not require a buffer zone.

 The long-billed curlew and sandhill crane are species of special concern and may require a buffer zone radius of up to 600 feet, depending on the situation and the site-specific response of curlews to Project-related activities. Final determination of a site-specific buffer zone radius for curlews and cranes will be made by an Avian Biologist, with concurrence by the Supervisory Avian Biologist and the federal-land management agencies’ Authorized Officers or their designated representative.

 Buffer zones for other species of special concern may be larger than that recommended for their taxonomic group. These species are listed in Exhibit C – Bird Species Designated as Sensitive or of Special Concern Thought to Nest or that May Nest in the Project Area. A buffer zone in approved Project work areas will be established only if the distance from the active nest to the edge of the work area is less than the recommended buffer zone radius for that species. The actual point of disturbance, which may be in the approved work area but outside of the buffer zone, is defined as that location in the approved work area where human activity is to occur. Human activity can include pedestrian traffic, vehicular traffic, noise, construction activity of any type, helicopter operations at or below 100 feet above ground level, and other activity in approved work areas.

The need for establishing a buffer zone in the approved work area will be evaluated by an Avian Biologist when an active nest is discovered. Once an active nest is detected in the survey area and its species is determined, the Avian Biologist will consult the list of recommended buffer zones (refer to Exhibit B – Recommended Nest Buffer Zone Guidelines for Bird Species Known or Suspected to Occur in the Project Area) to determine the appropriate radius. Distances will be measured using a hand-held laser range finder in open habitats and a 300-foot survey tape in forested habitats.

D1.5.3 Determination of Nest Buffer Variance A potential buffer zone variance will be considered only if the creation of a buffer zone will strongly conflict with critical Project activity. Only the Supervisory Avian Biologist may initiate the decision protocol for a determination of nest buffer variance (refer to Exhibit D – Decision Protocol for Onsite Determination of Buffer Variance), with final approval to come from the FWS and federal land- management agencies’ Authorized Officers or their designated representatives. An increased level of nest monitoring will be undertaken for any active nest subject to a buffer zone variance, with precautions to be taken to ensure that the increased level of monitoring will not itself present a risk to the active nest. Any

Energy Gateway South Transmission Project Attachment D-12 Plan of Development Appendix B1 – Biological Resources Conservation Plan November 2016 Attachment D – Migratory Bird Nest Management, Monitoring, and Reporting Plan

variance from the species-specific recommended buffer zone radius in Exhibit B – Recommended Nest Buffer Zone Guidelines for Bird Species Known or Suspected to Occur in the Project Area will be explained fully in the daily nest data log, and the effectiveness of the revised buffer zone radius will be evaluated and recorded during subsequent nest monitoring activities.

D1.5.4 Types of Buffer Zones Buffer zones discussed in this plan are no-work buffer zones in which no entry or pass-through is allowed to avoid and minimize impacts to nesting migratory birds. Other types of buffer zones may be established as determined through the variance protocol (e.g., drive-through only; refer to Exhibit D – Decision Protocol for Onsite Determination of Buffer Variance) or as specified for other resources. These resources could include riparian, wetland, and open-water areas; active raptor nests; greater sage-grouse leks; big game seasonal habitats; and other biological and habitat resources identified in Attachment G – Seasonal and Spatial Restrictions for Biological Resources, Attachment C – Wildlife Variance Management Plan, and Design Feature 33 in Appendix B3 – Water Resources Protection Plan. Buffer zones for these other resources are typically larger than those buffers recommended for active bird nests in Exhibit B, and would, therefore, provide additional protections to nesting birds. Seasonal and spatial restrictions can include, but are not limited to the following: no surface occupancy, conditional surface use, or no surface disturbance. Exception criteria, if identified, may be designated if relevant to resources present in the Project area.

D1.5.5 Avian Behavior Suggesting Disturbance An Avian Biologist will re-evaluate and increase the buffer zone radius for any nest if it is determined or suspected that the recommended buffer zone radius is inadequate to prevent a violation of the MBTA. Project activities have the potential to cause or contribute to a bird being flushed from a nest that is already in an established buffer zone of the recommended radius. An Avian Biologist also may increase the buffer zone radius if other signs of Project-related disturbance are suggested by behavior of adult birds attending the nest (frequent chattering or alarm calls, hesitation to make food delivery to nestlings, etc.) at a level with the potential to cause nest abandonment or failure.

Avian behavioral cues suggesting nest disturbance from Project activities due to an ineffective buffer zone radius also can include hesitation on approaching the nest, bill swiping, and excessive intervals without nest attendance by an adult during critical phases of the nesting cycle (incubation and early nestling phases).

However, other potential sources of disturbance to active nests may exist that are not related to Project activities. These include interactions with other bird or wildlife species, non-Project vehicular traffic, livestock grazing, recreational activities, and other sources. Avian Biologists will consider these potential sources of non-Project disturbance when determining the adequacy of buffer zones for Project activities, although this plan cannot be responsible for disturbances that are not related to Project activities.

D1.5.6 Awareness and Identification of Buffer Zones Buffer zone boundaries in the approved work areas will be marked using signs and flagging placed at the edge of the buffer facing the work area, access road, staging area, or other Project activity or facility. No flagging will be located within 60 feet of an active nest to avoid attracting predators (Section D1.4.2 – Nest Survey Overview and Scheduling). Signage and flagging appearance and protocols will be consistent across the entire Project area to avoid any misunderstanding, and the Company/Construction Contractor(s) will develop signage and flagging protocols consistent with Appendix A1 – Flagging,

Energy Gateway South Transmission Project Attachment D-13 Plan of Development Appendix B1 – Biological Resources Conservation Plan November 2016 Attachment D – Migratory Bird Nest Management, Monitoring, and Reporting Plan

Fencing, and Signage Plan. Signage and flagging protocols will be discussed during the environment and safety training program. The Construction Contractor(s) also will be provided with written buffer zone guidelines for future reference. Coordination, cooperation, and understanding between Avian Biologists, Environmental Inspectors, and the Construction Contractor(s) are key to the effectiveness of the buffer zones.

D1.5.7 Termination of Buffer Zones The need for an established buffer zone will end when monitoring of a given nest determines that it is no longer active—nestlings have fledged, or nest has been abandoned or has failed (refer to Section D1.6 – Nest Monitoring Protocol)—or Project activity and construction that may disturb the nest are no longer occurring within 300 feet of the buffer zone, whichever is first. Signage and flagging will be removed from the approved work area immediately after it is determined that a nest is no longer active, or when project activity and construction are no longer occurring in the buffer zone and potential disturbance is no longer a concern.

D1.6 Nest Monitoring Protocol D1.6.1 Timing of Nest Monitoring Visits All active nests for which a buffer zone is established in the approved work area, and all active nests within 150 feet of approved and active work area boundaries at which nest survey activities have occurred (regardless of the need for a buffer zone) will be monitored by either an Avian Biologist or Environmental Inspector. Active nests will be monitored weekly at minimum and ideally at 4- to 5-day intervals, but monitoring frequency may vary depending on Project activity or other factors. Monitoring that occurs too frequently (e.g., every day) may increase the risk of alerting potential land predators to nest presence through tracks and creation of scent trails. For these reasons, nest monitoring should occur only as often as needed to determine nest status as directed by an Avian Biologist.

Nest monitoring activities have the potential to accidentally alert nearby aerial predators or parasitic nesters to the nest location. Nest monitoring visits should never occur when a western scrub-jay, Steller’s jay, American crow, common raven, or female brown-headed cowbird is visible in the nest vicinity.

Avian Biologists or Environmental Inspectors conducting nest monitoring activities will be aware of the possibility that new nests may have been initiated in previously surveyed areas since the last monitoring visit. If any bird behavior observed during monitoring suggests that a newly initiated nest of any species is nearby, an attempt will be made to find it. If a new nest is found, it will be documented, buffered, and monitored as described in Sections D1.4.2 – Nest Survey Overview and Scheduling, D1.5 – Guidelines for Establishing Buffer Zones, and D1.6 – Nets Monitoring Protocol of this plan.

D1.6.2 Monitoring Nests Located High in Vegetation or Structures Open-cup nests located on the ground or in low shrubs (less than 5 feet above ground level) will allow for easy access and inspection. Nests located from 6 to 15 feet above ground level can be monitored effectively with a mirror mounted on a pole to determine nest contents. Nests located more than 15 feet above ground level are difficult to monitor for the presence of eggs or young, but nest status can be estimated using observations of adult behavior. For active nests at any height, remote observations can be made through binoculars or a spotting scope at a distance of 50 feet or more without actually looking into the nest. A bucket truck should be used to allow Avian Biologists to inspect nests located more than 15 feet above ground level in the immediate vicinity of reasonable road access, particularly for common raven and American crow nests on telephone poles or other structures. If no eggs and/or nestlings are

Energy Gateway South Transmission Project Attachment D-14 Plan of Development Appendix B1 – Biological Resources Conservation Plan November 2016 Attachment D – Migratory Bird Nest Management, Monitoring, and Reporting Plan

present in any nests so inspected, then the nest may be destroyed to prevent it from becoming an active nest.

D1.6.3 Monitoring with Remote Observations Remote observations can be equally useful in determining the continued need for a buffer zone as well as information on eggs or nestlings. Remote observations should be the technique of choice used to make nest monitoring observations because of the danger of causing extreme disturbance to the nest and attending adult birds by closely examining nest contents. Such disturbance caused by an otherwise well- meaning observer has the potential for a violation of the MBTA; and therefore, remote observations should be the default monitoring method. There is no need to approach a nest closely to determine the number of eggs or young present if it is observed that an adult is sitting on the nest in an incubating or brooding position, or if an adult is observed feeding nestlings (conspicuous vocalizations made by nestlings during food delivery are another clue to exact or approximate nest location). These behaviors indicate that the nest is active, as does an observation of an adult carrying food in its bill. The presence of recently fledged young nearby will suggest that the nest has been successful and subsequently abandoned. Remote observations will be used to monitor active nests as often as possible.

Determining the number of eggs or nestlings present will likely be impossible at cavity nests, underground burrow nests, nests located more than 15 feet above ground level, magpie nests, and oriole nests. In these cases, monitoring visits may require up to 30 minutes to observe adult behavior at and near the nest, which will indicate nest status and subsequent need for nest monitoring.

D1.6.4 Termination of Nest Monitoring Activities Monitoring for a given nest will terminate when the final nest determination is made (fledged or failed) or Project activity and construction that may disturb the nest are no longer occurring within 300 feet of the buffer zone, whichever is first. All signage and flagging associated with the original establishment of the buffer zone will be removed upon termination of nest monitoring activities, or when project activity and construction are no longer occurring in the buffer zone and potential disturbance is no longer a concern.

D1.7 Measures to Avoid, Minimize, or Deter Project Impacts on Nesting Birds D1.7.1 Avoidance/Minimization The primary methods to avoid and minimize impacts on nesting birds will be (1) construction at times outside of the nesting season, (2) preconstruction vegetation clearing outside of the nesting season, and (3) the creation and maintenance of appropriate buffer zones around active nests, as discussed previously.

D1.7.2 Deterrent Methods to Prevent Birds from Nesting on Project- Related Structures, Facilities, and Equipment Birds may initiate nesting in approved work areas even after preconstruction vegetation clearing (habitat removal) has occurred and construction has been initiated. All legally available methods to prevent this will be used to reduce the probability of nests becoming established in approved work areas or on Project- related equipment and materials. No methods may be employed that will prevent an active nest from being used once eggs have been laid in it or if nestlings are present. In situations where nests have been initiated in spite of deterrent methods, the Construction Contractor(s) and Environmental Inspectors will employ all feasible means to allow the nest to remain and successfully complete its entire nesting cycle by

Energy Gateway South Transmission Project Attachment D-15 Plan of Development Appendix B1 – Biological Resources Conservation Plan November 2016 Attachment D – Migratory Bird Nest Management, Monitoring, and Reporting Plan

implementing the requirements of this plan. Under no circumstances can an active nest be removed, destroyed, or harmed in any way through either direct or indirect action.

Passerines and other nonraptorial birds have been known to nest on construction equipment and materials during the nesting season. To minimize the potential for conflict with nesting passerines, sticks and other debris thought to have been placed by birds preparing to nest on equipment or materials may be actively removed. Fully constructed bird nests also may be removed, except those active nests with eggs or nestlings; eggs without a nest may not be removed until an Avian Biologist or Environmental Inspector has determined that the nesting event at that site has been abandoned, completed, or failed.

Recommended deterrent methods include, but are not limited to, the following:

 Tarps should be used to cover construction equipment, materials in storage, vehicles, helicopter support equipment and materials, contractor staging areas, or other Project equipment and facilities that will not be used for several days to prevent nest initiation in these areas. Straw bundles used for erosion control provide attractive potential nest sites, as do sheltered sites, such as stacks of stored materials. Daily maintenance of tarps through inspection and adjustment is crucial to their effectiveness. It is recommended that pipes or other equipment providing sheltered sites in which cavity-nesting birds could initiate nesting be covered with tarps or other materials that will prevent access by birds.

 Activity by killdeer or other ground-nesting birds in recently cleared work areas, as noted by Avian Biologists, Environmental Inspectors, or the Construction Contractor(s), should result in prompt inspection of those areas to discourage nesting by those species. Project-related areas maintained for long-term use, such as substations, parking areas, and other maintained semi- permanent facilities that might typically be surfaced with gravel, can be covered with colored gravel designed to discourage ground-nesting birds. Colored gravel that will strongly contrast with the natural camouflage pattern present on the eggs of ground-nesting birds will greatly reduce the probability of nesting.

 Proper trash management in and around construction areas will prevent birds from being attracted to these potential food sources and reduce the potential for nesting. Trash should be removed on a daily basis, and trash bins should be covered to prevent access by birds. Additional deterrent methods, which may become available during Project construction, or guidelines provided by FWS at a future date, can be employed as approved by all agencies involved.

D1.7.3 Accidental Nest Destruction

 If the Construction Contractor(s) becomes aware that an active nest has been damaged or destroyed by any Project activity, they will cease all construction within 300 feet of the nest location and immediately notify an Environmental Inspector who will document the incident with the assistance of an Avian Biologist. The Environmental Inspector will notify the Construction Contractor’s Environmental Manager, who will notify the CIC, who will then notify the agencies (BLM, USFS, BIA, and FWS) of the incident within 24 hours via email or text messaging. Documentation of the event will include species (if known), nest stage (if known), discovery and monitoring history of the nest (if any), work activity responsible, known or probable reason for the accident, and photographic documentation. The agencies will then determine the appropriate course of action, as this will be a violation of the MBTA.

Energy Gateway South Transmission Project Attachment D-16 Plan of Development Appendix B1 – Biological Resources Conservation Plan November 2016 Attachment D – Migratory Bird Nest Management, Monitoring, and Reporting Plan

D1.8 Documentation and Reporting D1.8.1 Digital Archiving of Nest Survey and Monitoring Data A pen tablet will be used to record all nest data from survey and monitoring activities; a hard-copy nest data form will be completed for each nest on discovery to provide backup for the electronic data. This field data collected by Avian Biologists will be downloaded to a centralized database on a daily basis for this information to be available to Environmental Inspectors, Construction Contractor(s), and agency personnel so that up-to-date information may be uploaded as needed for planning, scheduling, and monitoring purposes. This centralized, digitized database is the nest monitoring log, which will form the basis for the twice-monthly nest survey and monitoring reports.

D1.8.2 Twice-monthly Nest Reports and Summary A report outlining all nest survey, nest discovery, nest monitoring, and buffer zone establishment and variance activities will be prepared twice each month during the nesting season (April 1 to August 31) and submitted to the designated point of contact (to be identified in the POD) of the BLM, USFS, and BIA. This will be a digital report to be submitted electronically.

D1.8.3 Annual Report on Nest Discovery, Monitoring, and Avoidance/Minimization Activities An annual report summarizing all nest survey, discovery, buffer, monitoring, and avoidance or minimization activities will be submitted to the BLM, USFS, BIA, and FWS by November 31 during each year of Project construction. Also included will be an evaluation of the effectiveness of the recommended nest buffer zones. This report will be submitted in hard copy and in digital form.

Energy Gateway South Transmission Project Attachment D-17 Plan of Development Appendix B1 – Biological Resources Conservation Plan November 2016 Attachment D – Migratory Bird Nest Management, Monitoring, and Reporting Plan

D1.9 Glossary of Terms

 Active nest. For the purposes of this plan, an active nest is one containing eggs or nestlings (dependent and flightless). Under no circumstances can an active nest be removed, destroyed, or harmed in any way, through either direct or indirect action.

 Inactive nest. For the purposes of this plan, an inactive nest does not contain eggs or nestlings and includes nests under construction, current-season nests that have been abandoned or for which the nesting cycle has been completed, and old nests from previous seasons. Inactive nests may be destroyed as long as no possession occurs.

 Nest. Location where eggs are laid; there are many types of nests, including open-cup nests located on the ground or in vegetation, cavity nests in trees or rock outcrops, underground burrow nests, and nests that consist of only a slight depression on the ground in which eggs are laid. Some parasitic nesters, such as brown-headed cowbirds, do not construct their own nest but instead lay their eggs in the nest of a host species and let the host raise their young.

 Nesting cycle. For the purposes of this plan, the time from when the first egg is laid to the time when the last nestling fledges from a given nest. The cycle also can end prior to fledging of the nestlings when the nest is abandoned for any reason by the adults, the nest is destroyed by weather or other environmental factors, or the eggs or nestlings are taken by a predator. For the purposes of this plan and the MBTA, the nest-building stage of the nesting cycle is not included.

 Nesting season. For the purposes of this plan, the day and month when the first egg is laid in a nest by any species of a nesting bird community in a defined geographic area (state, county, land- management unit, etc.) to the day and month when the last nestling fledges from the last active nest in the same area. Each bird species has its own particular nesting season, and the combination of all these species-specific dates identifies the overall nesting season of the entire nesting bird community in the Project area.

 Nestling. A dependent, flightless bird in the nest in juvenal plumage, from the time it hatches from an egg until the time it fledges. Most species (e.g., warblers, sparrows) have nestlings that are altricial (blind, featherless, and unable to thermoregulate upon hatching) and require many days or even weeks to fledge, while other species (e.g., killdeer) have precocial nestlings (mostly feathered and able to thermoregulate soon after hatching) that are able to leave the nest within only a few hours or days.

 Phenology. The sequence of events in a full nesting cycle, including courtship, nest-building, egg-laying, incubation, nestling/brooding, fledging, and any post-fledging care and feeding.

 Point of disturbance. Exact location in the approved work area where human activity is to occur. Human activity can include pedestrian traffic, vehicular traffic, noise, construction activity of any type, helicopter operations at or below 100 feet above ground level, and other activity in approved work areas.

 Raptor or raptorial. Birds of prey, including hawks, eagles, falcons, owls, and vultures.

Energy Gateway South Transmission Project Attachment D-18 Plan of Development Appendix B1 – Biological Resources Conservation Plan November 2016 Attachment D – Migratory Bird Nest Management, Monitoring, and Reporting Plan

D1.10 Literature Cited Andrews, R., and R. Righter. 1992. Colorado Birds. Denver Museum of Natural History, Denver, Colorado. 442 pp. Behle, W.H. 1958. The Bird Life of Great Salt Lake. University of Utah Press, Salt Lake City, Utah. 203 pp. Behle, W.H., and M.L. Perry. 1975. Utah Birds: Guide, Check-list and Occurrence Charts. Utah Museum of Natural History, University of Utah, Salt Lake City, Utah. 142 pp. Butler, C.J., J.B. Tibbits, and K. Hucks. 2014. Status of 10 Additional Species of Conservation Concern in U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Region 6. Final Report, Department of Biology, University of Central Oklahoma, Edmond. Center Point Energy. 2013. Migratory Bird Impact Assessment, Mitigation, and Compliance Plan for the Bear Den Project Plan of Development. Final Report to USDI-BLM, Dickinson, North Dakota. Available online at: http://www.blm.gov/style/medialib/blm/mt/field_offices/north_dakota/centerpoint_ea/beardenpha se2.Par.76940.File.dat/Draft%20Appendix%20H%20- %20Migratory%20Bird%20Impact%20Assessment%20Mitigation%20Compliance%20and%20V oluntary%20Conservation%20Plan.pdf Faulkner, D. 2012. Birds of Wyoming. Roberts and Co. Publishers, Greenwood Village, Colorado. 432 pp. FWS. 2014. Migratory Bird Conservation Actions for Projects to Reduce the Risk of Take during the Nesting Season. Unpublished Document, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) Region 6, Migratory Bird Management. 3 pp. Hayward, C.L., C. Cottam, A.M. Woodbury, and H.H. Frost. 1976. Birds of Utah. Great Basin Naturalist Memoirs No. 1, Brigham Young University, Provo, Utah. 229 pp. Kingery, H.E. (Ed.). Colorado Breeding Bird Atlas. Colorado Bird Atlas Partnership and Colorado Division of Wildlife, Denver, Colorado. 636 pp. Ralph, C.J., G.R. Geupel, P. Pyle, T.E. Martin, and D.F. DeSante. 1993. Handbook of field methods for monitoring landbirds. Gen. Tech. Rpt. PSW-GTR-144, USDA Forest Service, Albany, California. Righter, R., R. Levad, C. Dexter, and K. Potter. 2004. Birds of Western Colorado Plateau and Mesa Country. Grand Valley Audubon Society, Grand Junction, Colorado. 214 pp. Ryser, F.A., Jr. 1985. Birds of the Great Basin: A Natural History. University of Nevada Press, Reno. 604 pp. San Diego Gas and Electric Company. 2013. East County Substation Project Nesting Bird Management, Monitoring, and Reporting Plan. Available online at: http://www.cpuc.ca.gov/environment/info/dudek/ECOSUB/BIO_7J_Nesting%20Bird%20Manag ement,%20Monitoring,%20and%20Reporting%20Plan.pdf SHN Consulting Engineers and Geologists, Inc. 2013. Wildlife Pre-Construction Surveys for the Willits Bypass. Final Report to Flatiron West, Inc., Benicia, California.

Energy Gateway South Transmission Project Attachment D-19 Plan of Development Appendix B1 – Biological Resources Conservation Plan November 2016 Attachment D – Migratory Bird Nest Management, Monitoring, and Reporting Plan

THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK

Exhibit A Bird Species Not Protected by the Migratory Bird Treaty Act and that May Nest in the Project Area

THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK

EXHIBIT A– BIRD SPECIES NOT PROTECTED BY THE MIGRATORY BIRD TREATY ACT AND THAT MAY NEST IN THE PROJECT AREA

The following six upland game bird species (native and introduced) are not protected by the Migratory Bird Treaty Act (MBTA)1 but are subject to various state regulations in Wyoming, Colorado, and Utah. Therefore, these six species are included in the provisions of the plan. Seasonal and spatial restrictions for greater sage-grouse are addressed in Attachment G – Seasonal and Spatial Restrictions for Biological Resources and are not addressed in this plan. Columbian sharp-tailed grouse also has not been included because it is unlikely that Project activities will occur in areas where they are known to nest.

 California quail  Chukar  Ring-necked pheasant  Ruffed grouse  Dusky grouse  Wild turkey

The following four introduced species are not protected by the MBTA and are not subject to any state regulations in Wyoming, Colorado, and Utah. They are not included in the avoidance and minimization provisions of this plan. Discovery of an active nest of any of the following species will be recorded in the daily nest log but will not be subject to buffer zone establishment and monitoring.

 Rock pigeon  Eurasian collared-dove  European starling  House sparrow

1http://www.fws.gov/migratorybirds/regulationspolicies/mbta/mbtandx.html http://www.fws.gov/policy/library/2005/05-5127.html

Exhibit A-1

THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK

Exhibit B Recommended Nest Buffer Zone Guidelines for Bird Species Known or Suspected to Occur in the Project Area

THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK

EXHIBIT B – RECOMMENDED NEST BUFFER ZONE GUIDELINES FOR BIRD SPECIES KNOWN OR SUSPECTED TO OCCUR IN THE PROJECT AREA

Table 1 presents the radius of recommended buffer zones to be established around active, nonraptorial bird nests of species (n=164) that are known or suspected to occur along the Project route in Wyoming, Colorado, and Utah. The Bureau of Land Management (BLM) recommends nest buffer zones with a radius ranging from 100 to 300 feet, depending on the species, and their recommendations have been incorporated here to the extent possible. These recommended nest buffer zone guidelines provide a starting point for identifying how to best stay in compliance with the Migratory Bird Treaty Act.

Recommended nest buffer zone guidelines are based on taxonomic groups of similar species, with the assumption that species in a taxonomic group will require similar buffer zone sizes. Exceptions to this one-size-fits-all simplistic approach do occur but have only been included in Table 1 when a published buffer size guideline exists as a precedent. Empirical, quantitative determinations of appropriate buffer zone size are not available for most species on this list.

TABLE 1 BUFFER ZONE RADIUS FOR TAXONOMIC GROUP AND SPECIES Taxonomic Group and Species Buffer Zone (feet) Waterfowl (Geese, Ducks, Mergansers) American wigeon 200 Blue-winged teal 200 Canada Goose 200 Canvasback 200 Cinnamon teal 200 Common merganser 200 Gadwall 200 Green-winged Teal 200 Lesser scaup 200 Mallard 200 Northern pintail 200 Northern shoveler 200 Redhead 200 Ring-necked duck 200 Ruddy duck 200 Wood duck 200 Upland Game Birds California quail 200 Chukar 200 Columbian sharp-tailed grouse Contact Bureau of Land Management for guidance Dusky grouse 200 Greater sage-grouse Protections for sage-grouse are addressed in Attachment G, Table 3 Ring-necked pheasant 200 Ruffed grouse 200 Wild turkey 200 Wading Birds (Herons, Egrets, IBIS)1 American bittern 300 or more Black-crowned night-heron 300 or more Great blue heron 300 or more

Exhibit B-1

TABLE 1 BUFFER ZONE RADIUS FOR TAXONOMIC GROUP AND SPECIES Taxonomic Group and Species Buffer Zone (feet) Green heron 300 or more Snowy egret 300 or more White-faced ibis 300 or more Rails and Coots American coot 100 Sora 100 Virginia rail 100 Cranes Sandhill crane2 600 Shorebirds American avocet 300 Black-necked stilt 300 Killdeer 300 Long-billed curlew2 600 Snowy plover 300 Spotted sandpiper 300 Willet 300 Wilson’s phalrope 300 Wilson’s snipe 300 Pigeons and Doves Band-tailed pigeon 200 Mourning dove 200 Goatsuckers Common nighthawk 300 Common poorwill 300 Swifts White-throated swift 300 Hummingbirds Black-chinned hummingbird 100 Broad-tailed hummingbird 100 Calliope hummingbird 100 Kingfishers Belted kingfisher 200 Woodpeckers American three-toed woodpecker 200 Downy woodpecker 200 Hairy woodpecker 200 Lewis’s woodpecker 200 Northern flicker 200 Red-naped sapsucker 200 Williamson’s sapsucker 200 Flycatchers, Kingbirds, and Phoebes Ash-throated flycatcher 200 Cordilleran flycatcher 200 Dusky flycatcher 200 Eastern kingbird 200 Gray flycatcher 200 Hammond’s flycatcher 200 Olive-sided flycatcher 200

Exhibit B-2

TABLE 1 BUFFER ZONE RADIUS FOR TAXONOMIC GROUP AND SPECIES Taxonomic Group and Species Buffer Zone (feet) Say’s phoebe 200 Western kingbird 200 Western wood-pewee 200 Willow flycatcher 200 Shrikes Loggerhead shrike 300 Vireos Gray vireo 200 Plumbeous vireo 200 Warbling vireo 200 Jays and Corvids American crow 200 Black-billed magpie 200 Clark’s nutcracker 200 Common raven 200 Pinyon jay 200 Steller’s jay 200 Western scrub-jay 200 Larks Horned lark 300 Martins and Swallows3 Bank swallow 100 Barn swallow 100 Cliff swallow 100 Northern rough-winged swallow 100 Purple martin 100 Tree swallow 100 Violet-green swallow 100 Chickadees, Titmice, Bushtits, and Nuthatches Black-capped chickadee 200 Bushtit 200 Juniper titmouse 200 Mountain chickadee 200 Pygmy nuthatch 200 Red-breasted nuthatch 200 White-breasted nuthatch 200 Creepers Brown creeper 200 Wrens Bewick’s wren 200 Canyon wren 200 House wren 200 Marsh wren 200 Rocky wren 200 Gnatcatchers Blue-gray gnatcatcher 200 Dippers American dipper 200

Exhibit B-3

TABLE 1 BUFFER ZONE RADIUS FOR TAXONOMIC GROUP AND SPECIES Taxonomic Group and Species Buffer Zone (feet) Kinglets Golden-crowned kinglet 200 Ruby-crowned kinglet 200 Bluebirds, Solitaires, Robins, and Thrushes American robin 200 Hermit thrush 200 Mountain bluebird 200 Swainson’s thrush 200 Townsend’s solitaire 200 Veery 200 Western bluebird 200 Catbirds, Thrashers, and Mockingbirds Gray catbird 300 Northern mockingbird 300 Sage thrasher 300 Waxwings Cedar waxwing 200 Longspurs McCown’s longspur 300 Warblers American redstart 200 Black-throated gray warbler 200 Common yellowthroat 200 MacGillivray’s warbler 200 Orange-crowned warbler 200 Townsend’s warbler 200 Virginia’s warbler 200 Wilson’s warbler 200 Yellow-breasted chat 200 Yellow-rumped warbler 200 Yellow-warbler 200 Towhees, Sparrows, and Juncos Black-throated sparrow 300 Brewer’s sparrow 300 Chipping sparrow 300 Dark-eyed junco 300 Fox sparrow 300 Grasshopper sparrow 300 Green-tailed towhee 300 Lark bunting 300 Lark sparrow 300 Lincoln’s sparrow 300 Sagebrush sparrow 300 Savannah sparrow 300 Song sparrow 300 Spotted towhee 300 Vesper sparrow 300 White-crowned sparrow 300

Exhibit B-4

TABLE 1 BUFFER ZONE RADIUS FOR TAXONOMIC GROUP AND SPECIES Taxonomic Group and Species Buffer Zone (feet) Tanagers, Grosbeaks, and Buntings Western tanager 200 Black-headed grosbeak 200 Blue grosbeak 200 Lazuli bunting 200 Blackbirds, Meadowlarks, Grackles, Cowbirds, and Orioles Bobolink 200 Brewer’s blackbird 200 Brown-headed cowbird Not applicable Bullock’s oriole 200 Common grackle 200 Great-tailed grackle 200 Red-winged blackbird 200 Western meadowlark 200 Yellow-headed blackbird 200 Finches, Crossbills, Siskins, and Goldfinches Pine grosbeak 200 House finch 200 Cassin’s finch 200 Red crossbill 200 Pine siskin 200 Lesser goldfinch 200 Evening grosbeak 200 SOURCES: Valente and Fischer 2011 Buffer zone distance for long-billed curlew (Montana Fish, Wildlife, and Parks [fwp.mt.gov/fwpDoc.html?id=55375]) NOTES: 1Colonies of wading birds may require a buffer of up to 1,000 feet 2Recommended minimum buffer distance for nests, unless Bureau of Land Management provides specific guidelines or case- specific guidance. 3Swallows nesting under pre-existing bridges or other structures may not require a buffer zone. The following assumptions have contributed to buffer radius recommendations listed above:

 All species commonly nesting in urban, suburban, or high-intensity agricultural areas or near improvements, roads, and structures regularly experiencing substantial levels of human activity may have a 100-foot buffer zone if this reduction is considered appropriate by the Supervisory Avian Biologist with concurrence by the federal land-management agencies’ Authorized Officers or their designated representatives. These smaller buffer zones will only be designated in areas along the Project where pre-existing, substantial levels of human activity occur. Bird species eligible for the smaller buffer zones include killdeer, mourning dove, downy and hairy woodpeckers, Say’s phoebe, horned lark, black-capped chickadee, black-billed magpie, western scrub-jay, American crow, common raven, American robin, yellow warbler, lesser goldfinch, red- winged blackbird, yellow-headed blackbird, and grackles.

 All swallows, hummingbirds, rails, and coots will have a 100-foot buffer zone. These groups of species are highly tolerant of human activity and disturbance and will nest in proximity to human activity and disturbance, indicating that a 100-foot buffer zone would be adequate to prevent nest abandonment and/or failure due to anthropogenic influences. Cliff swallow, northern rough- winged swallow, and violet-green swallow are notable for their ability to nest on or under human structures, their tolerance of human disturbance near active nests, and their ability to coexist with human activity (Brown and Brown 1995, De Jong 1996, Brown et al. 2011). Black-chinned

Exhibit B-5

hummingbird and other hummingbird species commonly nest in urban and residential areas subject to extreme levels of human disturbance. They also will nest adjacent to areas experiencing extensive habitat alterations (Baltosser and Russell 2000). Virginia rail, the only rail species likely to be encountered within the Project area, commonly nests in extremely small patches of emergent vegetation (cattails and reeds) found in roadside ditches with or without standing water; as a consequence they are generally tolerant of human disturbance and noise (NCGAP 2005). American coot commonly nests in small patches of emergent marsh vegetation in roadside ditches adjacent to paved highways and in local parks, commercial developments, and sewage ponds subject to high levels of human activity and disturbance. Coots showed a temporary intermediate response to passing vehicles at distances from 21-40 meters, with no evidence of nest abandonment (Brisbin et al. 2002).

 Cliff swallows and other species nesting on structures or under bridges that existed prior to Project activities may not require a buffer zone. The assumption and rationale for this approach is that species already nesting under existing structures have previously been exposed to human activity and are habituated to it. Cliff swallow and northern rough-winged swallow, which commonly nest under bridges, are extremely tolerant of human disturbance and rarely abandon their nests unless access to the nest is physically blocked (Brown and Brown 1995, De Jong 1996). Barn owl frequently nests under bridges in Utah, where human activity and disturbance is tolerated; however, collisions with high-speed vehicles on highways are a major cause of mortality (Marti et al. 2005).

 The long-billed curlew and sandhill crane are species of special concern and requires a buffer zone radius of up to 600 feet (Montana Fish, Wildlife, and Parks recommendation2), depending on the situation and the site-specific response of curlews to Project-related activities. Final determination of a site-specific buffer zone radius for curlews and cranes will be made by an Avian Biologist, with concurrence by the Supervisory Avian Biologist and coordination with the federal land-management agencies’ Authorized Officers or their designated representatives.

 Buffer zones for some species of special concern may be larger than that recommended for their taxonomic group (refer to Exhibit C – Bird Species Designated as Sensitive or of Special Concern Thought to Nest or that May Nest in the Project Area). Likewise, much larger buffer zones than those recommended here should be designated if concentrations of colonial-nesting birds are detected adjacent to the Project route. Examples of colonial-nesting species include herons and wading birds, shorebirds, and swallows. Colonies of herons and wading birds may require buffer zones of up to 1,000 feet (Valentine and Fischer 2011). Several taxonomic groups are unlikely to nest along the Project route, such as gulls and terns, but a nest of any species not listed above will automatically receive a buffer zone of 300 feet. An Avian Biologist will determine if it should be otherwise with the concurrence of the federal land-management agencies’ Authorized Officers or their designated representatives and the Supervisory Avian Biologist. Consultation with the BLM, USFS, BIA, and FWS will be required prior to vegetation clearing and construction within 0.5 mile of known Columbian sharp-tailed grouse and mountain plover nesting areas.

2fwp.mt.gov/fwpDoc.html?id=55375

Exhibit B-6

Literature Cited Baltosser, William H. and Stephen M. Russell. 2000. Black-chinned Hummingbird (Archilochus alexandri), The Birds of North America Online (A. Poole, Ed.). Ithaca: Cornell Lab of Ornithology; Retrieved from the Birds of North America Online: http://bna.birds.cornell.edu/bna/species/495doi:10.2173/bna.495. Brisbin, Jr., I. Lehr and Thomas B. Mowbray. 2002. American Coot (Fulica americana), The Birds of North America Online (A. Poole, Ed.). Ithaca: Cornell Lab of Ornithology; Retrieved from the Birds of North America Online: http://bna.birds.cornell.edu/bna/species/697adoi:10.2173/bna.697a. Brown, Charles R. and Mary B. Brown. 1995. Cliff Swallow (Petrochelidon pyrrhonota), The Birds of North America Online (A. Poole, Ed.). Ithaca: Cornell Lab of Ornithology; Retrieved from the Birds of North America Online: http://bna.birds.cornell.edu/bna/species/149doi:10.2173/bna.149. Brown, C. R., A. M. Knott and E. J. Damrose. 2011. Violet-green Swallow (Tachycineta thalassina), The Birds of North America Online (A. Poole, Ed.). Ithaca: Cornell Lab of Ornithology; Retrieved from the Birds of North America Online: http://bna.birds.cornell.edu/bna/species/014doi:10.2173/bna.14. De Jong, Michael J. 1996. Northern Rough-winged Swallow (Stelgidopteryx serripennis), The Birds of North America Online (A. Poole, Ed.). Ithaca: Cornell Lab of Ornithology; Retrieved from the Birds of North America Online: http://bna.birds.cornell.edu/bna/species/234doi:10.2173/bna.234. Marti, Carl D., Alan F. Poole and L. R. Bevier. 2005. Barn Owl (Tyto alba), The Birds of North America Online (A. Poole, Ed.). Ithaca: Cornell Lab of Ornithology; Retrieved from the Birds of North America Online: http://bna.birds.cornell.edu/bna/species/001doi:10.2173/bna.1. North Carolina GAP Analysis Project. 2005. Online: http://www.basic.ncsu.edu/ncgap/sppreport/abnme05030.html. Valente, J.V., and R.A. Fischer. 2011. Reducing human disturbance to waterbird communities. DOER Technical Notes Collection. ERDC TN DOER-E29. Vicksburg, MS: U.S. Army Engineer Research and Development Center. Available at http://el.erdc.usace.army.mil/dots/doer/doer.html.

Exhibit B-7

THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK

Exhibit C Bird Species Designated as Sensitive or of Special Concern Thought to Nest or that May Nest in the Project Area

THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK

EXHIBIT C – BIRD SPECIES DESIGNATED AS SENSITIVE OR OF SPECIAL CONCERN THOUGHT TO NEST OR THAT MAY NEST IN THE PROJECT AREA

Table 1 does not include raptors since those species are not in the scope of this plan. Bird species listed as threatened or endangered under the protection of the Endangered Species Act or are candidate species for listing are likewise not included. Common names of birds conform to those approved by the American Ornithologists Union (AOU); scientific names of birds are not included since they are available on the AOU website (www.americanornithology.org). Species are listed in taxonomic order, not alphabetical, according to the most recent AOU guidelines. This is because buffer zones for most bird species are designated based on taxonomic groups that are more likely to exhibit similar behavioral responses to potential human activity and disturbance.

In Table 1 Birds of Conservation Concern, the Partners in Flight (PIF) Watch List, and the State of the Birds Watch List, the 1988 amendment to the Fish and Wildlife Conservation Act mandates the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) to “identify species, subspecies, and populations of all migratory nongame birds that, without additional conservation actions, are likely to become candidates for listing under the Endangered Species Act (ESA) of 1973.” The overall goal of the FWS Birds of Conservation Concern is to accurately identify the migratory and non-migratory bird species (beyond those already designated as federally threatened or endangered) that represent the highest conservation priorities. Bird species considered for inclusion on the Birds of Conservation Concern list are nongame birds, gamebirds without hunting seasons, subsistence-hunted nongame birds in Alaska and Endangered Species Act candidate, proposed endangered or threatened, and recently delisted species.

The central premise of PIF has been that the resources of public and private organizations in the Western Hemisphere must be combined, coordinated, and increased to achieve success in conserving bird populations in this hemisphere. PIF was formed in 1990 in response to growing concerns about declines in the populations of many land bird species. The initial focus was on neotropical migrants, species that breed in the Nearctic (North America) and winter in the Neotropics (Central and South America), but the focus has spread to include all landbirds. The PIF Watch List identifies those bird species with multiple causes for concern across their entire range, moderately abundant or widespread species exhibiting declines or great threats, and species with a restricted distribution or low population size.

As part of the 2014 State of the Birds Report, a team of scientists from the North American Bird Conservation Initiative (NABCI) identified the 233 U.S. bird species most in need of conservation action—these species make up the 2014 Watch List. Although most of the Watch List species are protected by the Migratory Bird Treaty Act (MBTA) and more than one-third of them already receive extra protections under the U.S. Endangered Species Act (ESA), the non-ESA species need urgent conservation attention to keep them from becoming threatened or endangered. Species are included on the Watch List if they exhibit a threshold of high combined vulnerability across a variety of conservation factors. The goals of the Watch List are to promote proactive conservation for species and to highlight the species most in danger of without significant action.

Literature Cited Butler, C.J., J.B. Tibbits, and K. Hucks. 2014. Status of 10 Additional Species of Conservation Concern in U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Region 6. Final Report, Department of Biology, University of Central Oklahoma, Edmond.

Exhibit C-1

TABLE 1 BIRD SPECIES DESIGNATED AS SENSITIVE OR OF SPECIAL CONCERN THOUGHT TO NEST OR THAT MAY NEST IN THE PROJECT AREA State of the Birds

Birds of Conservation Concern ) 2014

List

Bird By State

Listed

(

Red

-

Common Name Conservation

Other

U.S. Fish and Sensitive

Region CW

Watch

-

State

Management Wildlife CW Yellow

-

Bureau of Land

Partners in Flight

US

U.S. Forest Service Service Sensitive

US Common Birds 10 16 9 Region 6 National in Steep Decline Waterfowl GBBDC Mallard NAWMP Cinnamon teal NAWMP ● GBBDC Northern pintail WY-SGCN 2 ● NAWMP Canvasback NAWMP WY-SGCN 2 GBBDC Redhead WY-SGCN 2 NAWMP GBBDC Lesser scaup WY-SGCN 2 NAWMP Upland Game Birds Columbian sharp- CO-SOC CO tailed grouse UT-SPC Greater sage- CO, UT, ● grouse WY Wading Birds White-faced ibis CO, WY WY-SGCN 2 Cranes CO-SOC Greater sandhill UT-SPC crane2 WY-SGCN 3 Shorebirds Snowy plover3 ● ● ● ● CO, UT USSCP CO-SOC ●

Exhibit C-2

TABLE 1 BIRD SPECIES DESIGNATED AS SENSITIVE OR OF SPECIAL CONCERN THOUGHT TO NEST OR THAT MAY NEST IN THE PROJECT AREA State of the Birds

Birds of Conservation Concern ) 2014

List

Bird By State

Listed

(

Red

-

Common Name Conservation

Other

U.S. Fish and Sensitive

Region CW

Watch

-

State

Management Wildlife CW Yellow

-

Bureau of Land

Partners in Flight

US

U.S. Forest Service Service Sensitive

US Common Birds 10 16 9 Region 6 National in Steep Decline CO-SOC CO, UT, Mountain plover ● ● ● ● USSCP UT-SPC ● WY WY-SGCN 1 Solitary sandpiper ● Willet USSCP ● CO-SOC CO, UT, Long-billed curlew ● ● ● ● ● ● USSCP UT-SPC ● WY WY-SGCN 2 Wilson’s ● phalarope1 Pigeons and Doves Band-tailed pigeon ● GBBDC ● Goatsuckers Common ● nighthawk Swifts White-throated ● CO-SE swift Kingfishers Belted kingfisher ● Woodpeckers Lewis’s UT-SPC ● ● ● ● ● ● UT ● ● woodpecker WY-SGCN 2 Williamson’s ● ● sapsucker

Exhibit C-3

TABLE 1 BIRD SPECIES DESIGNATED AS SENSITIVE OR OF SPECIAL CONCERN THOUGHT TO NEST OR THAT MAY NEST IN THE PROJECT AREA State of the Birds

Birds of Conservation Concern ) 2014

List

Bird By State

Listed

(

Red

-

Common Name Conservation

Other

U.S. Fish and Sensitive

Region CW

Watch

-

State

Management Wildlife CW Yellow

-

Bureau of Land

Partners in Flight

US

U.S. Forest Service Service Sensitive

US Common Birds 10 16 9 Region 6 National in Steep Decline Red-naped ANF-MIS Sapsucker ANF-SS MNF-SS American three- UT UWCNF- toed woodpecker SS and MIS Flycatchers Olive-sided ● ● ● ● ● flycatcher Willow flycatcher ● ● ● ● ● ● WY-SGCN 3 Ash-throated WY-SGCN 2 flycatcher Shrikes Loggerhead shrike ● ● ● ● WY ● ● Vireos Gray vireo ● ● ● ● ● Warbling vireo ANF-MIS Jays Pinyon jay ● ● ● ● ● ● Western scrub-Jay WY-SGCN 2 Larks Horned lark ● ● Martins and Swallows Purple martin ● Bank swallow ●

Exhibit C-4

TABLE 1 BIRD SPECIES DESIGNATED AS SENSITIVE OR OF SPECIAL CONCERN THOUGHT TO NEST OR THAT MAY NEST IN THE PROJECT AREA State of the Birds

Birds of Conservation Concern ) 2014

List

Bird By State

Listed

(

Red

-

Common Name Conservation

Other

U.S. Fish and Sensitive

Region CW

Watch

-

State

Management Wildlife CW Yellow

-

Bureau of Land

Partners in Flight

US

U.S. Forest Service Service Sensitive

US Common Birds 10 16 9 Region 6 National in Steep Decline Titmice Juniper titmouse ● WY-SGCN 2 Bushtits Bushtit WY-SGCN 2 Nuthatches Pygmy nuthatch WY-SGCN 2 Wrens Bewick’s wren ● ● Bluebirds and Thrushes Veery ● Thrashers Sage thrasher ● ● ● WY WY-SGCN 2 Longspurs McCown’s ● ● ● ● ● WY-SGCN 2 ● longspur Warblers Virginia’s warbler ● ● ● ● Wilson’s warbler ● Sparrows Green-tailed ● towhee Brewer’s sparrow ● ● ● ● ● WY, CO ● WY-SGCN 2 Sagebrush sparrow ● ● ● WY ● WY-SGCN 2 Lark bunting WY-SGCN 2 ● Grasshopper UT-SPC ● ● UT ● ● sparrow WY-SGCN 2

Exhibit C-5

TABLE 1 BIRD SPECIES DESIGNATED AS SENSITIVE OR OF SPECIAL CONCERN THOUGHT TO NEST OR THAT MAY NEST IN THE PROJECT AREA State of the Birds

Birds of Conservation Concern ) 2014

List

Bird By State

Listed

(

Red

-

Common Name Conservation

Other

U.S. Fish and Sensitive

Region CW

Watch

-

State

Management Wildlife CW Yellow

-

Bureau of Land

Partners in Flight

US

U.S. Forest Service Service Sensitive

US Common Birds 10 16 9 Region 6 National in Steep Decline Song sparrow ANF-MIS Lincoln’s sparrow ANF-MIS Blackbirds and Grackles UT-SPC Bobolink UT ● WY-SGCN 2 Brewer’s blackbird ● Common grackle ● Finches Cassin’s finch ● ● ● ● Pine siskin ● Evening grosbeak ● NOTES: GBBDC = Game Birds Below Desired Condition 1FWS Region 6 (Butler, Tibbits, and Hucks 2014) MNF = Manti-La Sal National Forest 2The greater sandhill crane population is not ESA listed as are other subspecies. MIS = Management Indictor Species 3The snowy plover population referred to is the Interior Population, which is not ESA NAWCP = North American Waterfowl Conservation Plan listed. NAWMP = North American Waterfowl Management Plan ANF = Ashley National Forest PIF = Partners in Flight BCR = Bird Conservation Region SPC = Species of Concern BLM = Bureau of Land Management UWCNF = Uinta-Wasatch-Cache National Forest CO = Colorado USFS = U.S. Forest Service CO-SE = Colorado State Endangered USSCP = United States Shorebird Conservation Plan CO-SOC = Colorado Species of Concern UT = Utah CW = Continental Watchlist WY = Wyoming ESA = Endangered Species Act WY-SGCN = Wyoming Species of Greatest Conservation Need FWS = U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service

Exhibit C-6

Exhibit D Decision Protocol for Onsite Determination of Buffer Variance

THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK

EXHIBIT D – DECISION PROTOCOL FOR ONSITE DETERMINATION OF BUFFER VARIANCE

The following decision protocol establishes the procedure by which the onsite Supervisory Avian Biologist, with approval and guidance from the Bureau of Land Management (BLM), U.S. Forest Service (USFS), and Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA) and Authorized Officers or their designated representatives can determine if a variance to a recommended buffer zone radius is appropriate for a particular active bird nest. A potential buffer zone variance will only be considered if the creation of a buffer zone will strongly conflict with critical Project activity. An increased level of nest monitoring will be initiated for any onsite buffer zone variance, with precautions to be taken to ensure the increased level of monitoring will not itself present a risk to the active nest.

This protocol should only be used when the distance from a nest to the point of disturbance is less than the recommended buffer zone radius for the species (refer to Exhibit B – Recommended Nest Buffer Zone Guidelines for Bird Species Known or Suspected to Occur in the Project Area). The distance from the nest to the point of disturbance and the distance from the nest to the edge of the approved work area might not be the same. The point of disturbance is defined as that location in the approved work area where human activity is to occur. Human activity can include pedestrian traffic, vehicular traffic, noise, construction activity of any type, helicopter operations at or below 100 feet above ground level, and other activity in approved work areas.

The purpose of this decision protocol is to ensure that a potential buffer zone variance for a specific active nest in a specific situation presents no risk to the nest and no risk of violating the Migratory Bird Treaty Act due to Project-related human activity and disturbance. The determination that a variance to the recommended buffer zone is appropriate for a particular species in a specific situation will not mean that a similar variance is appropriate for that species in every situation, since a variance determination is a one- time, site-specific action.

The protocol was created with the recommendations and input of the BLM, USFS, and BIA, and is within regulatory boundaries set by those agencies. While the decision regarding whether a variance to a recommended buffer zone radius is appropriate for a particular active bird nest would be made by the BLM, USFS, and BIA, coordination with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) would occur for any nest buffer zone variances. Monitoring results from any nest buffer zone variances would be provided to FWS, and any potential take resulting from implementation of a nest buffer zone variance would be reported to the FWS as specified in Section D1.7.3 – Accidental Nest Destruction.

The design of the decision protocol is much like a taxonomic key. A series of questions are presented that, when answered either yes or no, will identify the appropriate course of action. The questions are asked in a sequence similar to that which will be considered by an interagency regulatory committee considering a formal request for variance.

There are only two courses of action possible in this decision protocol: (1) either allow a reasonable variance to the buffer zone, or (2) prevent any Project activity within the buffer zone.

1. Does PacifiCorp or its Construction Contractor(s) have an alternative route or practical measure that is feasible for avoiding the nest buffer zone during the time frame when this nest is anticipated to be active? This could include an action as simple as temporarily halting Project drive-through activity within a buffer zone that only covers a portion of the approved work area and rerouting that activity through an adjacent portion of the work area located outside of the buffer zone.

Exhibit D-1

1a If Yes, the alternative route or measure should be selected to avoid the buffer zone. 1b If No, go to number 2. 2. Is the nest-to-point-of-disturbance distance within 70 to 100 percent of the buffer zone radius recommended for the species? This is a situation in which the nest-to-point-of-disturbance distance is 70 to 100 feet for a species whose nest requires a 100-foot buffer; 140 to 200 feet for a species requiring a 200-foot buffer; and 210 to 300 feet for a species requiring a 300-foot buffer. 2a If Yes, proceed to number 3. 2b If No, meaning the nest-to-point-of-disturbance distance is less than 70 percent of the recommended buffer zone radius, then proceed to number 5. 3. Is the nest of a species identified on the FWS Birds of Conservation Concern list for the applicable region; the applicable State Partners In Flight list; or other applicable, recognized and accepted, species of concern list? 3a If Yes, proceed to number 4. 3b If No, the onsite Supervisory Avian Biologist can make a determination to allow work to continue with increased monitoring and with or without disturbance mitigation measures, such as visual screening, noise abatement, and drive-through activity only. The final determination should also consider the local rarity of the species, extent of adjacent alternative nesting habitat in the area, and other factors that will suggest a variance might or might not be appropriate in this instance. 4. Do topographic or other natural or unnatural screening features (dense vegetation, man-made structures, etc.) exist between the nest and the disturbance that will eliminate or greatly reduce the visual (line-of-sight) or auditory (noise) influences of the disturbance? Or is the nest located or suspected to be located at a height of 30 or more feet above ground, thereby providing the nest with a two-dimensional separation from the disturbance? 4a If Yes, the onsite Supervisory Avian Biologist can make a determination to allow work to continue with increased monitoring and with or without disturbance mitigation measures, such as visual screening, noise abatement, and drive-through activity only. The final determination should also consider the local rarity of the species, extent of adjacent alternative nesting habitat in the area, and other factors that will suggest a variance might or might not be appropriate in this instance. 4b If No, proceed to number 5. 5. The full buffer zone is enforced; work terminates within the buffer as long as the nest is active; monitoring of the nest is initiated; and a formal, agency-regulated variance process is required for work to proceed within the buffer zone.

Exhibit D-2

Attachment E Clay Phacelia and Deseret Milkvetch Suitable Habitat Parameters

THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK Recommended habitat requirements for clay phacelia (Armstrong 1992, USFWS 1982):

The attributes below describe occupied clay phacelia habitat. Since very little habitat is occupied, we do not know the range or variability of each of the attributes where clay phacelia might occur thus those mapping suitable habitat should not rule out habitat that does not fit these attributes perfectly. Instead these attributes serve as general guidelines and are not meant to be all encompassing. Surveyors should include all habitats that closely match these attributes where the potential for clay phacelia exists.

Surveyors should check reference populations prior to surveys to get a better understanding of the species, its phenology at the time of surveys and the attributes of the habitat. Surveys should be coordinated with the US Forest Service botanist for the species who has knowledge of the species and its habitat requirements.

Geology: Outcroppings of the Douglas Creek and Garden Gulch members of the Green River Formation

Soils: Shale based clay colluvium with varying sizes of fragmented shale. Can grow on a range of soil types including fine texture soil, equal parts sand, clay and silt with pebbles often with “flat slabs of lithified shale” covering the surface. It can also grow on loose shale plate outcrops with roots establishing in buff to grey color clay. pH 7.4-7.8. Suitable habitat model uses 7.7 to 7.9.

Vegetation: Pinon-juniper, mountain brush community. Extremely sparse vegetation with bare ground and rock covering 97.8% of the surface. Vegetation cover of 2.2% composed of Eriogonum umbellatum, Achnatherum hymenoides, , , and Quercus gambelii but little vegetation grows adjacent to clay phacelia (although some invasive, exotics have established) . No biological soil crust. Suitable habitat model uses canopy cover of less than 13 percent.

Elevations: 5900 ft to 6400 ft

Slope: Average 70%. Suitable habitat model uses 35% to 95%

Aspect: SE to W (can be snow free for varying periods during the winter). Suitable habitat model uses E to N.

Attachment E-1 Suitable Habitat Attributes for Deseret milkvetch (Astragalus desereticus) (Franklin 1990; Stone 1992; Humphrey 1993; Fitts 2009; USFWS 2011):

Surveyors should check multiple areas of occupied habitat prior to surveys to get a better understanding of the species, its phenology at the time of surveys, and the soil and vegetation attributes of the habitat. Surveys should be coordinated with the State Heritage Program botanist (Robert Fitts) because he has knowledge of the species and its habitat requirements.

Surveys need to be performed during the FWS recommended survey period because Deseret milkvetch individuals go dormant with little to no above ground presence during the summer heat.

Geology & Soils: Astragalus desereticus grows in exposed outcrops of the Moroni formation. The outcrops in the species’ range are composed of a poorly sorted mixture of tuff, breccia, and volcanic cobbles and pebbles along with sandstone and siltstone and well-rounded clasts of tan quartzite and dark-blue limestone. The surfaces of the poorly sorted outcrops that are occupied by the species range from primarily sandy to gravels with no apparent sand at all on the surface. Derived soils are considered stony sandy loams. Typically, these outcrops have steep slopes and are sparsely vegetated.

Aspect: Plants are primarily found on S, SW, and W facing slopes, although few plants found on N-facing slopes.

Associated species: Astragalus desereticus occurs in a sagebrush-juniper community (Welsh and Chatterley 1985). Species that are associated with A. desereticus are (twoneedle pinyon), Juniperus osteosperma (Utah juniper), Quercus gambelii (Gambel oak), (big sagebrush), Purshia tridentata (antelope bitterbrush), Astragalus calycosus (Torrey’s milkvetch), Astragalus utahensis ( Utah milkvetch) Opuntia polyacantha (plains pricklypear), Pseudoroegneria spicata (bluebunch wheatgrass), Achnatherum hymenoides (Indian ricegrass), Hesperostipa comata (needle and thread), and Eriogonum brevicaule (shortstem buckwheat) (Franklin 1990; Stone 1992; Humphrey 1993; Fitts 2009). Bromus tectorum (cheatgrass) also was one of the main associated species in portions of the A. desereticus population (Humphrey 1993).

Attachment E-2

Attachment F Uinta Hookless Cactus Survey Protocol

THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK EGS Project, Sclerocactus Survey Protocol

Introduction: Under current requirements for complete clearance surveys for Sclerocactus within the potential habitat polygon, we estimate approximately 3,456 acres of survey are needed across the EGS project area. This is a large survey effort with minimal benefits to the species. Additionally, within Sclerocactus core conservation areas, complete clearance surveys can have negative impacts from increased foot traffic in dense Sclerocactus populations. To reduce the potential for negative survey impacts and maximize effectiveness of Sclerocactus surveys, we developed the following alternative survey protocols. Additional mitigation to allow for reduced survey effort will be determined during consultation with the USFWS and approved prior to signing of the ROD.

Within level 1 core conservation areas: 1. Prior to conducting field surveys, known subpopulations (clusters of locations) of Sclerocactus will be mapped in GIS using a 300 foot buffer as the subpopulation boundary. Mapping will be done by the contractor conducting the surveys. 2. Surveys will not occur within these occupied polygons because occupancy is assumed. 3. Complete clearance surveys will be conducted in the areas between these occupied polygons within the ROW or disturbance area (geotechnical surveys) plus a 300-foot buffer. The purpose of surveys in these areas is to ground-truth the boundaries of subpopulation polygons, identify new subpopulations of plants, or confirm absence of Sclerocactus individuals. 4. Obvious unsuitable habitat (for example, Four-mile Wash) does not need to be surveyed.

Outside of level 1 core conservation areas but within the core conservation area 2 and Sclerocactus polygon: 1. Survey effort will be stratified using the Sclerocactus habitat model developed by Albeke et al. 2012. 2. We categorized the Sclerocactus habitat model by suitability (see Figure 1). Areas within the Sclerocactus polygon and outside of level 1 core conservation areas that have a habitat suitability of less than 0.5 will be subject to meander surveys. a. A meander survey is a less intense survey of lower-quality habitat. Surveyors can walk at greater distances and meander through lower quality habitat (see Figure 2, from the California “Survey Protocols Required for NEPA/ESA Compliance for BLM Special Status Plant Species” 2009; included in appendix A). No set distance is required between meander paths, but we recommend a meandering survey at approximately 25 foot spacing between surveyors or survey paths. This distance may vary based on habitat quality. b. As the surveyor passes through higher-quality habitat areas (alluvial cobble, Green River shales, etc.), survey intensity should increase (see Figure 1). As the habitat quality decreases, the surveyor can likewise decrease their survey effort.

Attachment F-1 c. Meander surveys will be conducted within the ROW or disturbance footprint plus a 300 foot buffer. d. If cacti are found during meander surveys, complete clearance surveys will be conducted in that habitat patch to accurately map that subpopulation. 3. Areas within the Sclerocactus polygon and outside of level 1 core conservation areas that have a habitat suitability of 0.5 or greater will be subject to 100 percent clearance (transect) surveys as per existing protocols (USFWS 2011).

General: 1. All plant surveys associated with this project will be good for the life of the project, with the following caveat: a. For planned disturbance areas within 300 feet of known plant locations, spot check surveys following established protocols (see Appendix B) should be conducted within a year of when construction is planned. The purpose of these surveys will be to identify if new Sclerocactus have established outside of known subpopulation boundaries, identified during previous surveys. 2. In any planned disturbance areas where Sclerocactus will be transplanted, the area will be thoroughly searched prior to construction, and individuals will be flagged for transplanting. This will allow the maximum number of Sclerocactus to be recovered. Cacti should be transplanted within a day or two of flagging and during dormancy and in the fall. A transplant plan will be developed by a qualified botanist in coordination with USFWS and BLM, and will be approved by both federal agencies prior to transplanting. 3. If the surveyor identifies additional methods in the field that may be beneficial to both Sclerocactus and the project, they may coordinate with both the USFWS and BLM to change these survey protocols, with written approval from both agencies (email approval is acceptable).

Literature Cited

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2011. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) Utah Field Office Guidelines for Conducting and Reporting Botanical Inventories and Monitoring of Federally Listed, Proposed and Candidate Plants. Utah Ecological Services Field Office, West Valley City, Utah. Available at; http://www.fws.gov/utahfieldoffice/SurveyorInfo.html .

Attachment F-2 Attachment F-3

Figure 1: High probability survey areas for complete clearance, in relationship to other cactus polygons.

Figure 2. Example of meander survey. From California BLM, 2009, page 4.

Attachment F-4 Appendix A

California BLM survey protocol

Attachment F-5 THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK Survey Protocols Required for NEPA/ESA Compliance for BLM Special Status Plant Species

Policy

It is BLM policy to conduct inventories to determine the occurrence and status of all special status plant species on lands managed by BLM or affected by BLM actions. This includes pro- active inventories directed toward developing plans or determining the status of plant species, as well as inventories conducted to determine the impacts of BLM planned or authorized actions on any special status plants that might be within the area of a proposed project. Such inventories are to be conducted at the time of year when such plant species can be found and positively identified.

Definition and Purpose

Inventory is the periodic and systematic collection of data on the distribution, condition, trend, and utilization of special status plant species (BLM Manual 6600).

Inventories are conducted for many reasons; however, for the purpose of this document only one inventory “reason” is addressed:

To ensure compliance with the National Environmental Policy Act and the Endangered Species Act by having sufficient information available to adequately assess the effects of proposed actions on special status plants. Assessments of the effects of these actions are documented in biological assessments (if the project involves Federally listed species and qualifies as a "major construction activity" as defined by the ESA).

Special status plants include plant taxa that are Federally listed as threatened and endangered, proposed for Federal listing, candidates for Federal listing, State listed as rare, threatened, or endangered, or BLM sensitive species. All plant species that are currently on List 1B of the California Native Plant Society’s Inventory of Rare and Endangered Plants of California (http://cnps.web.aplus.net/cgi-bin/inv/inventory.cgi), are BLM sensitive species, along with others that have been designated by the California State Director. BLM is party to a Memorandum of Understanding with the California Department of Fish and Game to collect information for inclusion in the California Natural Diversity Data Base. Therefore, in addition to inventorying for plants formally recognized as special status species by BLM, contractors must also inventory for all plant, lichen, and fungi species recognized as “special” by the California Natural Diversity Data Base (http://www.dfg.ca.gov/biogeodata/cnddb/pdfs/SPPlants.pdf). Although the following discussion uses the term “special status plants,” it should be interpreted to mean all of the plant taxa discussed above.

The inventory requirements below apply to energy rights-of-way applications on Federal lands managed by the BLM in California and northwestern Nevada. Projects that include State or private lands or require State approval will likely also require conformance with the rare plant

Attachment F-7 Survey Protocols for Special Status Plant Species 2009

survey guidelines of the California Department of Fish and Game (http://www.dfg.ca.gov/biogeodata/cnddb/pdfs/guideplt.pdf).

Timing and Intensity of Inventory

Before conducting inventories, contractors for BLM or energy companies should research three valuable sources to see if BLM special status species are known from the project area: the California Natural Diversity Data Base (CNDDB), CALFLORA, and the Biogeographic Information & Observation System (BIOS). However, CNDDB and BIOS are positive occurrence databases only, the lack of data should not be used as verification that the species does not exist in a given location. Inventories must be timed so that contractors can both locate and positively identify target plant species in the field. Inventories must be scheduled so that they will detect all special status species present. A single inventory on a single date will seldom suffice. For example, when one special status plant species suspected to be in the inventory can only be found and identified in April and another species can only be located and identified in August, at least two inventories are necessary. The first inventory can facilitate the second and/or third inventory, however, if potential sites for the late-flowering species are flagged during the first inventory. If sufficient information is available on the habitat requirements of potentially occurring species (substrate, plant community, etc.), and the site in question is believed to be unsuitable for those species, a field visit should still be conducted to document and validate the assumptions for believing that the species to be absent. In advance of the project site inventory, contractors should visit known populations of the target species in similar habitat conditions to determine current-year growth conditions and phenology. If, based on these visits to known populations, it appears likely that the project site inventory will fail to detect occurrences because of drought conditions (as may be the case for annual plant species or geophytic plants), BLM may require contractors to perform additional inventories in the following year.

Field Survey - Methodology

Field surveys will be floristic in nature, i.e., the contractor identifies every plant taxon observed in the project area to the taxonomic level necessary to determine rarity and listing status. Surveys will be conducted so that they will ensure a high likelihood of locating all the plant taxa in the project area. Depending on the size of the project area and the heterogeneity of the habitats within the project area, surveys will involve one or a combination of the following survey methods.

Complete Survey

A complete survey is a 100 percent visual examination of the project area (Figure 1) using transects. The length of the transect and distance between transects might change as the topography changes throughout the project area. Transects should be spaced so that all of the area between transects is visible and so that the smallest rare plant expected to occur is visible. The surveyor (1) compiles a species list while traversing the project area and keeps track of the plant community or habitat type where each taxon occurs; (2) maps the locations of all rare taxa

2 Attachment F-8 Survey Protocols for Special Status Plant Species 2009

encountered using a GPS unit, and (3) fills out a CNDDB Native Species Field Survey Form for each location of each rare taxon encountered.

Figure 1. Complete survey.

Intuitive Controlled Survey

An intuitive controlled survey is a complete survey of habitats with the highest potential for supporting rare plant populations and a less intense survey of all other habitats present (Figure 2). This type of survey can only be accomplished by botanists familiar with the habitats of all the plant species that may reasonably be expected to occur in the project area. The botanist traverses through the project area enough to see a representative cross section of all the major plant habitats and topographic features. During the survey, the botanist compiles a species list of all plant taxa seen en route and keeps track of the plant community or habitat type where each taxon occurs. The surveyor maps the locations of all rare taxa encountered using a GPS unit and fills out a CNDDB Native Species Field Survey Form for each location of each rare taxon encountered. When the surveyor arrives at an area of “high potential” habitat, s/he surveys that area completely as described above and shown in Figure 1. High potential habitat areas include areas defined in a pre-field review of potential rare plants and habitat and other habitats where a rare species appears during the course of initial field work traversing the project area. Areas within the project area that are not the focus of a complete survey must be surveyed sufficiently so that is the botanist and BLM reasonably believe that few if any additional species would be added to the complete species list for the project area. The report must justify why the botanist did not consider these areas to have a high potential for supporting rare plant species and thus did not subject the area to a complete survey.

3 Attachment F-9 Survey Protocols for Special Status Plant Species 2009

Figure 2. Intuitive Controlled Survey.

Documenting the Results of Inventory

The results of special status plant inventories should be well documented. This documentation must include as a minimum the completion and submission of Field Survey Forms and shapefiles/geodatabases of all special status plants found by BLM personnel or consultants. CNDDB defines occurrences as being separated from other plant locations by 0.25 mile. These forms are submitted to the BLM State Botanist and to the California Natural Diversity Data Base (CNDDB) at the following address:

CNDDB - Dept. of Fish and Game 1807 13th Street, Suite 202 Sacramento, CA 95811

Forms can be submitted electronically at: [email protected] Copies of the Field Survey Form are available from the CNDDB at the same address. They will also provide photocopied parts of topo maps if needed.

If the inventory discovers any rare or unusual plant communities,1 a Natural Community Field Survey Form must be completed for each such community and sent to the CNDDB at the address above.

1 Rare or unusual plant communities includes those communities marked with asterisks in the most current list of California plant communities recognized by the California Natural Diversity Data Base, available at: http://www.dfg.ca.gov/biogeodata/vegcamp/pdfs/natcomlist.pdf, and Unusual Plant Assemblages as defined in

4 Attachment F-10 Survey Protocols for Special Status Plant Species 2009

Most special status plant inventories of public lands conducted to assess the impacts of a project are performed by consultants hired by project proponents. These inventories must meet or exceed the intensity level required for the project by BLM. Personnel conducting the inventory must meet the qualifications outlined in this document. For BLM to adequately determine the quality of third party inventories, the following information must appear in a detailed report to BLM from the consultant or project proponent:

a. Project description, including a detailed map of the project location and study area.

b. A written description of the biological setting, including descriptions of the plant communities found in the project area and a vegetation map. Plant communities should be described and mapped to at least the alliance level using the vegetation classification system of the California Department of Fish and Game (CDFG). A list of the alliances currently recognized by CDFG can be found at: http://www.dfg.ca.gov/biogeodata/vegcamp/pdfs/NaturalCommunitiesList_Oct07.pdf. When the Manual of California Vegetation is published in 2009, the alliances recognized in that document should be used.

c. A detailed description of the inventory methodology, including techniques and intensity of the inventory and maps showing areas actually searched. This will also include areas searched but no special status plants found.

d. The results of the inventory.

e. The dates of the inventory.

f. An assessment of potential impacts and recommended mitigation measures to reduce impacts.

g. Recommended management actions to conserve any special status plants encountered should include both actions the BLM might take, as well as actions that might be taken by the FWS (listing or delisting of T/E plants, changes in candidate status, etc.).

h. A discussion of the significance of any special status plant occurrences found, with consideration for other nearby occurrences, and the distribution of the species as a whole.

i. Assessments of the health, population size, and protective status of any special status plants found.

j. A complete list of all plant species (not just special status species) identified within the project area, and a discussion of any range extensions discovered as a result of the inventory

the California Desert Conservation Area Plan (http://www.blm.gov/pgdata/etc/medialib/blm/ca/pdf/cdd/cdcaplan.Par.15259.File.dat/CA_Desert_.pdf) or shown on Map 6 of the California Desert Conservation Area Plan, as amended (copies on file at the BLM California State Office, the California Desert District, and each of the field offices in the California Desert District).

5 Attachment F-11 Survey Protocols for Special Status Plant Species 2009

k. Copies of all Field Survey Forms, for all special status plant occurrences found, or Natural Community Field Survey Forms, for any unusual communities found.

l. The name(s) and qualifications of the persons conducting the inventory.

m. A list of references cited, persons contacted and herbaria visited.

n. Additional data needs.

o. Other information as appropriate such as vegetation maps and photographs (see below).

Voucher specimens of special status plants should be collected if necessary to conclusively document the occurrence of the species and if the collection will not adversely affect the health of the population at the site. Collection of Federally listed plants on Federal lands requires a permit from the FWS. If voucher specimens are collected, they should be deposited in major recognized herbaria for future reference, preferably The University of California, Berkeley (UC), The Jepson Herbarium (JEPS), The California Academy of Sciences (CAS), or Rancho Santa Ana Botanic Garden (RSA).

Photographs should be taken of the areas inventoried, of all special status plants found, and of the habitat associated with each special status plant occurrence.

Data Collection – Data Submission

Data should be collected using a Mapping Grade GPS Receiver with an accuracy of < 3 meters Horizontal Root Mean Squared (HRMS).

All positions should be logged according to the following specifications:

• Maximum PDOP of 6 • Minimum of 5 Satellites • Minimum elevation mask of 15 degrees • Datum: NAD83 • Coordinate System: UTM Zone 10 or Zone 11, depending on where in California or northwestern Nevada the data is collected. • ESRI compliant formats (Geodatabase, Coverage or Shapefile)

Metadata must be included with the data. The following must be included in the metadata: • Project Name • Purpose – Summary of the intentions with which the data set was developed • Abstract Information – Brief narrative summary of the data set • Location – What area(s) does your data cover? ie., list statewide, regions, city, county? • Developer – Who collected the data?

6 Attachment F-12 Survey Protocols for Special Status Plant Species 2009

Data Dictionary – A data dictionary must be used for all projects. The dictionary should include the data that is requested on the CNDDB forms. This ensures that the botanist is collecting (electronically) the same data as is requested by DFG. This also ensures that all inventories are collecting the same level/standard of data.

GIS Support Data: BLM California State Office Downloadable Data Sources

Index Page with BLM Data Naming Rules http://www.blm.gov/ca/pa/gis/Data_Page/Data%20Page.html

Geospatial Data Downloads http://www.blm.gov/ca/gis/index.html

All data collected in and referenced to the public land survey are required to conform to this version of PLSS published on the California BLM data download page.

In addition to the local Field Office; a copy of the Data (DVD or CDROM) must be submitted directly to:

BLM California State Office Geographic Services, W1939 Attention: Chief Mapping Sciences 2800 Cottage Way Sacramento, CA 95825

GIS Questions: Please Call (916) 978-4343

Qualifications of Personnel Conducting Inventories

All personnel conducting special status plant inventories must have the following:

• strong backgrounds in plant and plant ecology

• strong background in field sampling design and methods

• knowledge of the floras of the inventory area including the special status plant species

• familiarity with natural communities of the area

These qualifications help ensure that all special status plants in the inventory area will be located, including taxa that BLM or project proponents did not predict at the start of the inventory. All survey efforts must be coordinated with the responsible BLM Field Office botanist or biologist

7 Attachment F-13 THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK Appendix B

Spot Check Survey MOU

Attachment F-15 THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK Attachment F-17 Attachment F-18 Attachment F-19 THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK Attachment G Seasonal and Spatial Restrictions for Biological Resources

THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK

ATTACHMENT G – SEASONAL AND SPATIAL RESTRICTIONS FOR BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES

Seasonal and spatial restrictions to protect biological resources were identified from Bureau of Land Management Resource Management Plans, U.S. Forest Service Land and Resource Management Plans, state wildlife management plans, agency guidelines, and through correspondence with the Bureau of Land Management, U.S. Forest Service, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, and state wildlife agency staff. For some resources, seasonal and spatial restrictions were developed through the National Environmental Policy Act process for this Project. Due to the nature of the biological resources they are designed to protect, seasonal and spatial restrictions vary by location in the Project area. Seasonal and spatial restrictions (e.g., no surface occupancy, conditional surface use, or no surface disturbance) and exception criteria, if identified, relevant to resources present in the Project area are summarized in the tables, including:

 Table 1 – Seasonal and Spatial Restrictions for Special Status Wildlife  Table 2 – Seasonal Restrictions for Big Game Habitats  Table 3 – Greater Sage-grouse Seasonal Restrictions  Table 4 – Raptor Surface Restrictions  Table 5 – Seasonal and Spatial Restrictions for Breeding Raptors

Applicable seasonal and spatial restrictions listed in this attachment would be applied in addition to the conservation and mitigation measures listed in Section B1.4. The Adaptive Wildlife Management Plan (Attachment C) describes processes for requesting modifications, waivers, or exceptions to the seasonal restrictions presented in this Attachment, where applicable.

In Table 4, the definition of an active raptor nest varies by state. According to the BLM Rawlins Field Office Resource Management Plan, an active nest is “any identified raptor nest site that could provide a nesting opportunity for a raptor”; this definition will be applied throughout Wyoming. The definition of active raptor nests that will be applied throughout Colorado and Utah includes both occupied and unoccupied nests as defined in Romin and Muck (2002):

Occupied Nests are defined as those nests which are repaired or tended in the current year by a pair of raptors. Presence of raptors (adults, eggs, or young), evidence of nest repair or nest marking, freshly molted feathers or plucked down, or current years’ mute remains (whitewash) suggest site occupancy. Additionally, all nest sites in a nesting territory are deemed occupied while raptors are demonstrating pair bonding activities and developing an affinity to a given area. If this culminates in an individual nest being selected for use by a breeding pair, then the other nests in the nesting territory will no longer be considered occupied for the current breeding season. A nest site remains occupied throughout the periods of initial courtship and pair bonding, egg laying, incubation, brooding, fledging, and post-fledging dependency of the young.

Unoccupied Nests are defined as those nests not selected by raptors for use in the current year. Nests would also be considered unoccupied for the non-breeding period of the year. The exact point in time when a nest becomes unoccupied should be determined by a qualified wildlife biologist based upon knowledge that the breeding season has advanced such that nesting is not expected. Inactivity at a nest site or territory does not necessarily indicate permanent abandonment.

Energy Gateway South Transmission Project Attachment G-1 Plan of Development Appendix B1 – Biological Resources Conservation Plan November 2016 Attachment G – Seasonal and Spatial Restrictions for Biological Resources

THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK

TABLE 1 SEASONAL AND SURFACE RESTRICTIONS FOR SPECIAL STATUS WILDLIFE State in Which Restriction Area to Which Restriction Data to Be Used to Apply Applies Restriction Source Applies Restriction Exception Restrictions Mexican Spotted Owl Exception, waiver, or modification Mexican spotted owl surveys Bureau of Land of this limitation in any year may be Within 0.5 mile of known conducted to meet Biological Utah Management (BLM) No surface occupancy. approved in writing, including Mexican spotted owl nests Assessment conservation Price Field Office documented supporting analysis, by measure requirements the Authorized Officer. Yellow-billed Cuckoo Ground-disturbing and disruptive Exception, waiver, or modification BLM Rawlins Field activities potentially disruptive to 2016 survey results as well as of this limitation in any year may be Office Resource Within 0.5 mile of identified Western yellow-billed cuckoos are results of monitoring Wyoming approved in writing, including Management Plan habitat prohibited from April 15 to August 15 for conducted before and during documented supporting analysis, by (RMP) the protection of nesting Western yellow- construction the Authorized Officer. billed cuckoos. Construction of roads, pipelines, and 2016 survey results as well as BLM Little Snake Current yellow-billed cuckoo power lines through riparian habitat results of monitoring Colorado None Field Office RMP habitat should not occur from June 1 through conducted before and during August 1. construction 2016 survey results as well as BLM Little Snake Within 0.25 mile of suitable Permanent ground-disturbing activities results of monitoring Colorado None Field Office RMP habitat will be prohibited. conducted before and during construction Black-footed Ferret If prairie dog towns/complexes suitable 2016 survey results as well as BLM Rawlins Field Within 164 feet (50 meters) of a as black-footed ferret habitat are present, results of monitoring Wyoming None Office RMP prairie dog town attempts will be made to avoid locating conducted before and during ground-disturbing activities. construction Avoidance areas for ground-disturbing Active white-tailed prairie dog 2016 survey results as well as activities. Rights-of-way on public land BLM Little Snake colonies in the black-footed results of monitoring Colorado with the potential to disturb occupied None Field Office RMP1 ferret reintroduction area on the conducted before and during black-footed ferret habitat will be BLM Little Snake Field Office. construction rerouted to avoid those prairie dog towns. The following CSU stipulation would be EXCEPTION: The Area Manager, in 2016 survey results as well as Black-footed ferret BLM White River applied to surface-disturbing and conference with FWS, may authorize results of monitoring Colorado reintroduction areas on the Field Office RMP2 disruptive activities associated with all surface disturbance or use within conducted before and during BLM White River Field Office. land use authorizations, permits, and these areas if an environmental construction

Energy Gateway South Transmission Project Attachment G-3 Plan of Development Appendix B1 – Biological Resources Conservation Plan November 2016 Attachment G – Seasonal and Spatial Restrictions for Biological Resources

TABLE 1 SEASONAL AND SURFACE RESTRICTIONS FOR SPECIAL STATUS WILDLIFE State in Which Restriction Area to Which Restriction Data to Be Used to Apply Applies Restriction Source Applies Restriction Exception Restrictions leases issued on BLM-administered analysis finds that the activity as lands. Surface occupancy or use is subject proposed or conditioned, would not to the following special operating adversely influence ferret recovery, constraints: or conflict with the ferret 1) Prior to authorizing activities in this reintroduction and management area, the Field Manager will confer plan. or consult with the FWS as required MODIFICATION: The Area by Section 7 of the Endangered Manager, in conference with FWS, Species Act. Depending on the may modify the terms of the CSU if scope of the proposed action, a plan the proposed action is shown to be of development may be required that compatible with ferret recovery demonstrates how the proposed goals and/or the ferret reintroduction activities would be conducted or and management plan. conditioned to avoid the direct or WAIVER: The Area Manager, in indirect loss of black-footed ferrets conference with FWS, may grant a or to avoid affecting the capability waiver if extirpation of wild, free of the site to achieve reestablishment roaming ferret populations objectives. culminates in the discontinuance of the species recovery program, or 2) The Field Manager may impose land local reintroduction efforts are use measures and limitations derived otherwise abandoned. from a site specific ferret reintroduction and management plan (see area's capacity to sustain ferret population objectives. Examples of measures and limitations include: (a) relocation of surface activities more than 656 feet; (b) deferring activities longer than 60 days; (c) limiting access to designated roads and trails; (d) modifications to project design to discourage raptor perching

Energy Gateway South Transmission Project Attachment G-4 Plan of Development Appendix B1 – Biological Resources Conservation Plan November 2016 Attachment G – Seasonal and Spatial Restrictions for Biological Resources

TABLE 1 SEASONAL AND SURFACE RESTRICTIONS FOR SPECIAL STATUS WILDLIFE State in Which Restriction Area to Which Restriction Data to Be Used to Apply Applies Restriction Source Applies Restriction Exception Restrictions and prohibit the disruption of certain or all prairie dog burrow systems; (e) limiting surface disturbance to certain seasons and times of day; (f) requiring efforts to offset losses of, or expand suitable prairie dog habitats to compensate for, unavoidable habitat loss or adverse habitat modification. 3) The following provisions are derived from “A Cooperative Plan for Black- footed Ferret below). The measures and limitations would be designed to avoid, or reduce to acceptable levels, the short and long term adverse effects on ferret survival, behavior, reproductive activities, and/or the Reintroduction and Management, Wolf Creek and Coyote Basin Management Areas”: (a) A “Plan of Operations” will be developed for large or multi- year mineral development programs that occur on federal estate within Black-footed Ferret Management Areas. (b) Mineral development and utility installation activities will be designed to avoid adverse influence on prairie dog habitat. In the event adverse impacts to prairie dog habitat are unavoidable, activities will be

Energy Gateway South Transmission Project Attachment G-5 Plan of Development Appendix B1 – Biological Resources Conservation Plan November 2016 Attachment G – Seasonal and Spatial Restrictions for Biological Resources

TABLE 1 SEASONAL AND SURFACE RESTRICTIONS FOR SPECIAL STATUS WILDLIFE State in Which Restriction Area to Which Restriction Data to Be Used to Apply Applies Restriction Source Applies Restriction Exception Restrictions designed to influence the smallest area practicable and/or those areas with the lowest prairie dog densities. When proposed developments cannot be designed or implemented to avoid substantive adverse impacts to the black-footed ferret or their habitat, the project proponents and appropriate agency(ies) would cooperatively develop a mitigation plan. The default objective for compensation is equal and in-kind replacement of the disturbed or destroyed prairie dog habitat via a cooperatively arranged expansion or enhancement of other prairie dog colonies in the Management Area. (c) Ferret occupation at the site of a proposed commercial activity may require special mitigation measures (e.g., delay of activities, capture and relocation of ferrets, habitat mitigation, modification to the design of activities or facilities, singularly or in combination). The course of events chosen will be determined cooperatively by the operator, CPW, and FWS at the time of an identified conflict. Reliable evidence of a ferret occupying a

Energy Gateway South Transmission Project Attachment G-6 Plan of Development Appendix B1 – Biological Resources Conservation Plan November 2016 Attachment G – Seasonal and Spatial Restrictions for Biological Resources

TABLE 1 SEASONAL AND SURFACE RESTRICTIONS FOR SPECIAL STATUS WILDLIFE State in Which Restriction Area to Which Restriction Data to Be Used to Apply Applies Restriction Source Applies Restriction Exception Restrictions proposed project vicinity during the reproductive period may warrant imposing measures as COAs in an effort to reduce the risk of compromising ferret reproductive efforts. Such measures may include relocating the proposed facility, modifying the conduct of an activity, or imposing a timing limitation (1 May to 15 July) on suitable habitats within 0.5 mile of the documented evidence. (d) On-site habitat reclamation will be required upon cessation of temporary (less than two years) surface disturbances as necessary. (e) As a general rule, acre-for-acre mitigation will be required for habitat lost due to permanent (equal to or greater than two years) surface disturbances. Examples of mitigation forms are listed below: i.) Vegetation Treatment. Burning, mechanical, and/or chemical treatments applied to areas with excessive or otherwise incompatible vegetation adjacent to existing towns and likely to be colonized by prairie dogs following land treatment. ii.) Relocation of Prairie Dogs. Prairie dogs translocated from

Energy Gateway South Transmission Project Attachment G-7 Plan of Development Appendix B1 – Biological Resources Conservation Plan November 2016 Attachment G – Seasonal and Spatial Restrictions for Biological Resources

TABLE 1 SEASONAL AND SURFACE RESTRICTIONS FOR SPECIAL STATUS WILDLIFE State in Which Restriction Area to Which Restriction Data to Be Used to Apply Applies Restriction Source Applies Restriction Exception Restrictions the site of surface disturbance to an area with vacant burrow systems. iii.) Create New Burrow Systems. The construction of artificial burrows in potential habitat which is lacking burrows and relocating affected prairie dogs to the artificial burrows. iv.) Habitat Banking. To avoid the inconvenience and inefficiency of implementing a large number of small mitigation projects over time, operators would have the option of implementing larger mitigation projects that could be used as a credit against future habitat modifications. Exception, waiver, or modification 2016 survey results as well as Mapped white-tailed prairie of this limitation in any year may be BLM Vernal Field Surface disturbing activities are results of monitoring Utah dog colonies east of the Green approved in writing, including Office RMP prohibited between March 1 and July 15. conducted before and during River documented supporting analysis, by construction the Authorized Officer. Mountain Plover Unless surveys consistent with the plover guidelines or other methods Ground-disturbing and disruptive approved by the U.S. Fish and activities (including reclamation Wildlife Service find that no plovers 2016 survey results as well as BLM Rawlins Field Potential mountain plover activities) are not allowed during the are nesting in the area. Exception, results of monitoring Wyoming Office RMP habitat reproductive period of April 10 to July 10 waiver, or modification of this conducted before and during for the protection of breeding and nesting limitation in any year may be construction mountain plover. approved in writing, including documented supporting analysis, by the Authorized Officer.

Energy Gateway South Transmission Project Attachment G-8 Plan of Development Appendix B1 – Biological Resources Conservation Plan November 2016 Attachment G – Seasonal and Spatial Restrictions for Biological Resources

TABLE 1 SEASONAL AND SURFACE RESTRICTIONS FOR SPECIAL STATUS WILDLIFE State in Which Restriction Area to Which Restriction Data to Be Used to Apply Applies Restriction Source Applies Restriction Exception Restrictions Traffic will be minimized and Speed Exception, waiver, or modification 2016 survey results as well as Within 0.5 mile of the identified limits will be posted at 25 miles per hour of this limitation in any year may be BLM Rawlins Field results of monitoring Wyoming mountain plover-occupied (mph) on resources roads and 35 mph on approved in writing, including Office RMP conducted before and during habitat local roads during the brood-rearing documented supporting analysis, by construction period (June 1 to July 10). the Authorized Officer. Exception, waiver, or modification 2016 survey results as well as Traffic speed and traffic volume will be of this limitation in any year may be BLM Rawlins Field Identified mountain plover- results of monitoring Wyoming limited during nighttime hours from April approved in writing, including Office RMP occupied habitat conducted before and during 10 to July 10. documented supporting analysis, by construction the Authorized Officer. The boundaries of the stipulated area 2016 survey results as well as may be modified if the Authorized BLM Little Snake Within 0.25 mile of all plover Prohibit surface use from April 1 to results of monitoring Colorado Officer determines that portions of Field Office RMP nest sites July 15. conducted before and during the area are not critical to the construction mountain plover. Migratory Birds Exception: Upon review and monitoring, the Authorized Officer may grant exceptions because of climatic and/or habitat conditions if High-value migratory bird activities would not cause undue 2016 survey results as well as breeding habitat. Birds BLM Price Field Nesting areas would be closed from April stress to migratory bird populations. results of monitoring Utah designated as BLM Special Office RMP 15 to August 1. Modification: Season may be conducted before and during Status Species would have the adjusted depending on climatic and construction highest priority. range conditions. Distance may be adjusted if natural features provide adequate visual screening. Waiver: None Pygmy Rabbit Identified pygmy rabbit habitat patches will be avoided by 100 meters, when 2016 survey results as well as Wyoming, possible. In the event identified pygmy BLM Rawlins Field results of monitoring Utah, and Within pygmy rabbit habitat. rabbit habitat can't be avoided by 100 None Office RMP conducted before and during Colorado meters, a fence will be constructed in construction areas identified by the BLM wildlife biologist, between the pygmy rabbit

Energy Gateway South Transmission Project Attachment G-9 Plan of Development Appendix B1 – Biological Resources Conservation Plan November 2016 Attachment G – Seasonal and Spatial Restrictions for Biological Resources

TABLE 1 SEASONAL AND SURFACE RESTRICTIONS FOR SPECIAL STATUS WILDLIFE State in Which Restriction Area to Which Restriction Data to Be Used to Apply Applies Restriction Source Applies Restriction Exception Restrictions habitat and the Project area, prior to any ground-disturbing activities, to reduce disturbance to pygmy rabbit habitat during Project construction. The fence shall remain in place through project construction. In addition, a preconstruction presence/absence survey for pygmy rabbits will be conducted prior to any surface disturbing activities within 0.25 mile of the edge of the proposed surface disturbance. The surveys must be completed by a BLM, or BLM-approved, wildlife biologist. The current survey protocol is available from the BLM Rawlins Field Office. Monitoring will be required by a BLM, or BLM approved, wildlife biologist for two years post- construction to identify any pygmy rabbit changes in habitat use and to determine if development impacted the local pygmy rabbit population. A report will be submitted to the BLM within 180 days after post-construction monitoring has been completed. Boreal Toad 2016 survey results as well as Within 300 meters of identified BLM West Desert Spatial buffers will be maintained in the results of monitoring Utah breeding habitat and 100 meters None District indicated areas. conducted before and during of riparian areas. construction Wyoming Pocket Gopher

Where active pocket gopher mounds are 2016 survey results as well as BLM Rawlins Field Within areas containing active results of monitoring Utah identified, the project will be moved 75 None Office RMP pocket gopher mounds meters from the identified pocket gopher conducted before and during mounds to reduce impacts, when construction possible. In cases when the project

Energy Gateway South Transmission Project Attachment G-10 Plan of Development Appendix B1 – Biological Resources Conservation Plan November 2016 Attachment G – Seasonal and Spatial Restrictions for Biological Resources

TABLE 1 SEASONAL AND SURFACE RESTRICTIONS FOR SPECIAL STATUS WILDLIFE State in Which Restriction Area to Which Restriction Data to Be Used to Apply Applies Restriction Source Applies Restriction Exception Restrictions proponent cannot avoid surface disturbing activity in active pocket gopher mounds by 75 meters, a pre- construction classification survey (via live capture) must be completed within 75 meters of the proposed project to identify the associated pocket gopher to the species level. The surveys must be completed by a BLM, or BLM- approved, wildlife biologist. The current survey protocol is available from the BLM Rawlins Field Office. If results conclude that the associated species is a Northern pocket gopher, the proposed surface disturbance may proceed without any mitigation. If results conclude that the associated species is a Wyoming pocket gopher, or the classification survey fails to conclusively identify the associated pocket gopher, the following protection measures will apply:

(1) The project will be moved 75 meters from the identified Wyoming pocket gopher habitat; or

(2) If applicable, in areas identified by the BLM wildlife biologist, a barrier will be placed between active Wyoming pocket gopher mounds and the project area prior to project construction. The barriers will remain in place through project construction. In addition, monitoring will be

Energy Gateway South Transmission Project Attachment G-11 Plan of Development Appendix B1 – Biological Resources Conservation Plan November 2016 Attachment G – Seasonal and Spatial Restrictions for Biological Resources

TABLE 1 SEASONAL AND SURFACE RESTRICTIONS FOR SPECIAL STATUS WILDLIFE State in Which Restriction Area to Which Restriction Data to Be Used to Apply Applies Restriction Source Applies Restriction Exception Restrictions required by a BLM, or BLM- approved, wildlife biologist for two years post-construction to identify any Wyoming pocket gopher changes in habitat use and to determine if development impacted the local Wyoming pocket gopher population. A report will be submitted to the BLM within 180-days after the post-construction monitoring has been completed.

NOTES: 1Through the National Environmental Policy Act process it was determined that the Project will not cross occupied black-footed ferret habitat on the BLM Little Snake Field Office and, therefore, this restriction is not anticipated to be applicable to the Project. 2Coordination with the FWS has already occurred through the Section 7 consultation process, and it is not anticipated that additional coordination with the FWS will be required. Therefore, this restriction is not anticipated to be applicable to the Project.

Energy Gateway South Transmission Project Attachment G-12 Plan of Development Appendix B1 – Biological Resources Conservation Plan November 2016 Attachment G – Seasonal and Spatial Restrictions for Biological Resources

TABLE 2 SEASONAL RESTRICTIONS FOR BIG GAME HABITATS1 State In Which Restriction Habitat to Which Data to Be Used to Apply Applies Restriction Source Restriction Applies Restriction Exception Restrictions Bureau of Land Exception, waiver, or modification of Ground-disturbing and disruptive Management (BLM) this limitation in any year may be Elk, pronghorn, and mule activities in big game crucial winter Data maintained by state Wyoming Rawlins Field Office approved in writing, including deer crucial winter range range will not be allowed during the wildlife agencies Resource Management documented supporting analysis, by the period of November 15 to April 30. Plan (RMP) Authorized Officer. Surface disturbing activities are Elk, pronghorn, and mule BLM Rawlins Field prohibited between March 1 to May 15 Wyoming deer migration corridors and – – Office RMP (spring) and October 15 to December 15 transitional range (fall). Crucial winter habitat will be closed to This stipulation will be applied after Elk, mule deer, and surface disturbing activities from the big game hunting season. In the BLM Little Snake Field Data maintained by state Colorado pronghorn crucial winter December 1 to April 30. Elk birthing case that hunting season extends later, Office RMP wildlife agencies range; elk calving areas areas will be closed to surface disturbing exceptions will be applied through activities from April 16 to June 30. normal procedures. Exception: An exception may be granted if: 1) an environmental analysis indicates that the proposed action could be conditioned so as not to interfere with habitat function or compromise animal condition in the project vicinity; 2) the Applicant, BLM, and Colorado Division of Wildlife (CDOW) negotiate compensation that would satisfactorily offset anticipated impacts BLM White River Field Elk and mule deer severe No development activity is allowed from on big game winter activities or habitat Data maintained by state Colorado Office RMP winter range December 1 through April 30. condition; 3) mild winter conditions, wildlife agencies prevailing habitat, or weather conditions allow early dispersal of animals from all or portions of a project area, the last 60 days of this seasonal limitation may be suspended. Severity of winter will be determined on the basis of snow depth, snow crusting, daily mean temperatures, and whether animals were concentrated on the winter range during the winter

Energy Gateway South Transmission Project Attachment G-13 Plan of Development Appendix B1 – Biological Resources Conservation Plan November 2016 Attachment G – Seasonal and Spatial Restrictions for Biological Resources

TABLE 2 SEASONAL RESTRICTIONS FOR BIG GAME HABITATS1 State In Which Restriction Habitat to Which Data to Be Used to Apply Applies Restriction Source Restriction Applies Restriction Exception Restrictions months; 4) actions are specifically intended to enhance the long-term utility or availability of suitable habitat. Modification: The size and timeframes of this stipulation may be modified if: 1) CDOW monitoring information indicates that current animal use patterns are inconsistent with dates established for animal occupation; 2) if the proposed action could be conditioned so as not to interfere with habitat function or compromise animal condition; 3) if the Applicant, BLM, and CDOW agree to habitat compensation that satisfactorily offsets detrimental impacts on activity or habitat condition. Waiver: This stipulation may be waived if the CDOW determines that all or specific portions of the area no longer satisfy this functional capacity. Exception: An exception may be This stipulation will not take effect until granted if: 1) an environmental analysis direct and indirect impacts on suitable indicates that the proposed action could summer range habitats exceed 10 percent be conditioned to have no additional of that available in the individual grazing influence on the utility or suitability of management units (GMUs). When this summer range habitats; 2) if the threshold has been reached, no further Applicant, BLM, and CDOW negotiate BLM White River Field Elk and mule deer summer Data maintained by state Colorado development activity will be allowed compensation that would satisfactorily Office RMP range wildlife agencies from May 15 through August 15 (Note: offset anticipated impacts on summer Development is allowed until 10 percent range function or habitat, 3) actions are of individual game management unit specifically intended to enhance the summer habitat has been affected, then long-term utility or availability of additional development is allowed from suitable habitat. Modification: The August 16 through May 14). size and timeframes of this stipulation may be modified if: 1) CDOW

Energy Gateway South Transmission Project Attachment G-14 Plan of Development Appendix B1 – Biological Resources Conservation Plan November 2016 Attachment G – Seasonal and Spatial Restrictions for Biological Resources

TABLE 2 SEASONAL RESTRICTIONS FOR BIG GAME HABITATS1 State In Which Restriction Habitat to Which Data to Be Used to Apply Applies Restriction Source Restriction Applies Restriction Exception Restrictions monitoring information indicates that current animal-use patterns are inconsistent with dates established for animal occupation; 2) the proposed action could be conditioned to have no additional influence on the utility or suitability of summer range habitats. Waiver: This stipulation may be waived if the CDOW determines that all or specific portions of the area no longer satisfy this functional capacity or that these summer ranges no longer merit critical habitat status. Waivers will also be applied to delineated summer range occurring below 7,350 feet. No development activity is allowed in this area between May 1 and June 30. Specific exception, modification, and The CDOW has indicated that these BLM White River Field waiver language will be developed in Data maintained by state Colorado Pronghorn production areas features exist on public lands in the Office RMP cooperation with the CDOW after the wildlife agencies White River Resource Area but have not affected areas have been delineated. yet delineated specific areas that will be subject to this timing restriction. Restrictions on activities are Mule deer rut in crucial Utah Division of Wildlife Utah BLM State Office recommended from November 1 to None winter range Resources (UDWR) data November 30.

Elk rut in crucial winter and Restrictions on activities are Utah BLM State Office summer range and calving recommended from September 1 to None UDWR data areas October 15.

This restriction will not apply if deer No activities within deer and elk crucial and/or elk are not present, or if it is Elk and mule deer crucial Utah BLM State Office winter range will be allowed from determined through analysis and UDWR GIS data winter range December 1 through April 30. coordination with UDWR that impacts will be mitigated. Factors to be

Energy Gateway South Transmission Project Attachment G-15 Plan of Development Appendix B1 – Biological Resources Conservation Plan November 2016 Attachment G – Seasonal and Spatial Restrictions for Biological Resources

TABLE 2 SEASONAL RESTRICTIONS FOR BIG GAME HABITATS1 State In Which Restriction Habitat to Which Data to Be Used to Apply Applies Restriction Source Restriction Applies Restriction Exception Restrictions considered will include snow depth, temperature, snow crusting, location of disturbance, forage quantity and quality, animal condition, and expected duration of disturbance. No more than 10 percent of such habitat Mule deer crucial winter Data maintained by state Utah BLM State Office will be subject to surface disturbance and None range wildlife agencies remain un-reclaimed at any given time. BLM will protect important wildlife habitat values from disturbing activities by restricting seismic work, well BLM Salt Lake Field development, new road construction, Data maintained by state Utah Crucial elk calving areas None Office RMP rights-of-way, and other disturbing wildlife agencies activities (excluding maintenance activities) from calving areas May 1 to June 30. Seismic work, well development, new Specific exceptions may be granted by road construction, rights-of-way, and BLM Salt Lake Field Crucial mule deer BLM if the proposed activity will not Data maintained by state Utah other disturbing activities (excluding Office RMP summer/fawning habitats seriously disturb the wildlife habitat wildlife agencies maintenance activities) are restricted values being protected. from April 15 to July 31. Exception: Upon review and monitoring, the Authorized Officer may grant exceptions because of climatic and/or range conditions if certain criteria are met and if activities would not cause undue stress to Desert Desert bighorn sheep and bighorn sheep and Rocky Mountain BLM Price Field Office Closed seasonally from April 15 to June Data maintained by state Utah Rocky Mountain bighorn bighorn sheep populations or habitats. RMP 15. wildlife agencies sheep spring/lambing range Modification: Season may be adjusted depending on climatic and range conditions. Waiver: A waiver may be granted if the habitat is determined to be unsuitable for lambing and there is no reasonable likelihood of future use as bighorn lambing grounds.

Energy Gateway South Transmission Project Attachment G-16 Plan of Development Appendix B1 – Biological Resources Conservation Plan November 2016 Attachment G – Seasonal and Spatial Restrictions for Biological Resources

TABLE 2 SEASONAL RESTRICTIONS FOR BIG GAME HABITATS1 State In Which Restriction Habitat to Which Data to Be Used to Apply Applies Restriction Source Restriction Applies Restriction Exception Restrictions Exception: Upon review and monitoring, the Authorized Officer may grant exceptions because of climatic and/or range conditions if certain criteria are met and if activities would not cause undue stress to moose BLM Price Field Office Closed seasonally from December 1 to populations or habitats. Modification: Data maintained by state Utah Moose winter range RMP April 15. Season may be adjusted depending on wildlife agencies climatic and range conditions. Waiver: A waiver may be granted if the winter range habitat is unsuitable or unoccupied during winter months by moose and there is no reasonable likelihood of future winter range use. Restrictions on activities are All big game wintering Data maintained by state Utah UDWR recommended from December 1 to April None habitat. wildlife agencies 15. NOTE: 1 Restrictions will be applied throughout the state listed under “State In Which Restriction Applies.”

Energy Gateway South Transmission Project Attachment G-17 Plan of Development Appendix B1 – Biological Resources Conservation Plan November 2016 Attachment G – Seasonal and Spatial Restrictions for Biological Resources

TABLE 3 GREATER SAGE-GROUSE SEASONAL RESTRICTIONS Applicable Data to Be Used to Apply Plan/Policy Habitat Type Specific Restriction Area Restriction Information Exception Restrictions Activities in unsuitable habitats would be evaluated under the exception, waiver, and modification criteria and could be Breeding, nesting, March 15 to June 30; surface PHMA data from Wyoming Priority Habitat Management allowed on a case by case basis. Where and earlybrood disturbing and/or disruptive Bureau of Land Management Areas (PHMAs) (core only) credible data support different rearing habitats activities would be prohibited. (BLM) timeframes for this seasonal restriction, Wyoming Greater dates could be shifted by up to 14 days Sage-grouse prior to or subsequent to the above dates. Approved Land Use Activities in unsuitable habitats would be Plan Amendment evaluated under the exception, waiver, and modification criteria and may be Nesting and early- Within 4 miles of occupied March 1 to July 141; surface allowed on a case-by-case basis. Where PHMA and lek data from brood rearing leks inside PHMAs disturbing and/or disruptive credible data support different Wyoming BLM habitats (connectivity only) activities would be prohibited. timeframes for this seasonal restriction, dates could be shifted by 14 days prior or subsequent to the above dates. Where credible data support different Nesting and early March 1 to July 141; surface Within 2 miles of occupied timeframes for this restriction, dates PHMA data from Wyoming brood rearing disturbing and/or disruptive leks located outside PHMAs could be shifted by 14 days prior or BLM habitats activities would be prohibited. subsequent to the above dates. December 1 to March 14; surface disturbing and/or disruptive activities would be prohibited to Wyoming Greater protect PHMA (core only) Sage-grouse populations of sage-grouse. Activities in unsuitable habitats within Approved Land Use Protection of additional mapped PHMAs would be evaluated under the Winter concentration area data Plan Amendment Winter habitat Winter concentration areas winter concentration areas in exception, waiver, and modification from Wyoming Game and Fish General Habitat Management Areas criteria and could be allowed on a case- Department would be implemented where by-case basis. winter concentration areas are identified as supporting populations of sage-grouse that attend leks within PHMAs (core only). Northwest Colorado March 1 to July 15; prohibit surface Breeding, nesting, Greater Sage-grouse occupancy and surface-disturbing Lek data from Colorado Parks and early-brood Within 4 miles of active leks None Approved Land Use activities associated with BLM and Wildlife rearing habitats Plan Amendment Right-of-Way (ROW) permits.

Energy Gateway South Transmission Project Attachment G-18 Plan of Development Appendix B1 – Biological Resources Conservation Plan November 2016 Attachment G – Seasonal and Spatial Restrictions for Biological Resources

TABLE 3 GREATER SAGE-GROUSE SEASONAL RESTRICTIONS Applicable Data to Be Used to Apply Plan/Policy Habitat Type Specific Restriction Area Restriction Information Exception Restrictions Specific time and distance determinations would be based on site-specific conditions and may be modified due to February 15 to June 15; apply Utah Greater Sage- documented local variations (e.g., Breeding, nesting, seasonal restrictions during this grouse Approved Within 3.1 miles of leks inside higher/lower elevations) or annual and early-brood period to manage discretionary PHMA data from Utah BLM Land Use Plan PHMAs climactic fluctuations (e.g., early/late rearing habitats surface disturbing activities and Amendment spring, long and/or heavy winter) in order uses on public lands. to better protect greater sage-grouse, in coordination with state of Utah biologists. Specific time and distance determinations would be based on site-specific conditions and may be modified due to April 15 to August 15; apply documented local variations (e.g., seasonal restrictions during this Early and late brood Identified brood rearing higher/lower elevations) or annual period to manage discretionary PHMA data from Utah BLM rearing habitat habitat climactic fluctuations (e.g., early/late surface disturbing activities and spring, long and/or heavy winter) in order uses on public lands. to better protect greater sage-grouse, in Utah Greater Sage- coordination with state of Utah grouse Approved biologists. Land Use Plan Specific time and distance determinations Amendment would be based on site-specific conditions and may be modified due to November 15 to March 15; apply documented local variations (e.g., seasonal restrictions during this Identified wintering habitat higher/lower elevations) or annual Winter habitat period to manage discretionary PHMA data from Utah BLM areas climactic fluctuations (e.g., early/late surface disturbing activities and spring, long and/or heavy winter) in order uses on public lands. to better protect greater sage-grouse, in coordination with state of Utah biologists. NOTE: 1Dates were changed from March 15 to June 30 at the request of the Rawlins BLM Field Office under the exception clause for this restriction.

Energy Gateway South Transmission Project Attachment G-19 Plan of Development Appendix B1 – Biological Resources Conservation Plan November 2016 Attachment G – Seasonal and Spatial Restrictions for Biological Resources

TABLE 4 RAPTOR SURFACE RESTRICTIONS Applicable Area to Which Data to Be Used to Apply Agency Plan/Policy Restriction Applies Restriction Exception Restrictions Raptors Active Nests Well locations, roads, ancillary facilities, and other surface structures requiring a repeated human presence will not be Rawlins Field Bureau of Land allowed. Distance may vary depending on 2016 aerial raptor nest survey results as Office Resource Within 825 feet of Management factors such as nest activity, species, None well as results of monitoring conducted Management active raptor nests (BLM) natural topographic barriers, and line-of- before and during construction Plan (RMP)A sight distances. Applies to any identified raptor nest site that could provide a nesting opportunity for a raptor. The no surface occupancy area could be altered depending on the active Little Snake 2016 aerial raptor nest survey results as Within 0.25 mile of status of the nest site or on the BLM Field Office No surface occupancy well as results of monitoring conducted raptor nests geographical relationship of RMPB before and during construction topographical barriers and vegetation screening to the nest site. Unoccupied Raptor Nests Facilities and other surface structures requiring a repeated human presence will Exception, waiver, or modification of not be allowed. Distance may vary this limitation in any year may be 2016 aerial raptor nest survey results as Vernal Field In spatial buffer of depending on factors such as nest activity, BLM approved in writing, including well as results of monitoring conducted Office RMPC unoccupied nest species, natural topographic barriers, and documented supporting analysis, by the before and during construction line-of-sight distances. Applies to any Authorized Officer. identified raptor nest site that could provide a nesting opportunity for a raptor. Unoccupied Raptor Nests – Other Than Special Status Raptors Ground-disturbing activities, occurring outside of the breeding season (seasonal buffer), but in the spatial buffer, would be allowed during a minimum 3-year nest monitoring period, as long as the activity 2016 aerial raptor nest survey results as Price Field In spatial buffer of BLM would not cause the nest site to become None well as results of monitoring conducted Office RMPD unoccupied nest unsuitable for future nesting, as before and during construction determined by a wildlife biologist. Facilities and other permanent structures would be allowed, if they meet the above criteria.

Energy Gateway South Transmission Project Attachment G-20 Plan of Development Appendix B1 – Biological Resources Conservation Plan November 2016 Attachment G – Seasonal and Spatial Restrictions for Biological Resources

TABLE 4 RAPTOR SURFACE RESTRICTIONS Applicable Area to Which Data to Be Used to Apply Agency Plan/Policy Restriction Applies Restriction Exception Restrictions Raptor Nests – Listed and Candidate Threatened/Endangered Species, Bureau of Land Management Sensitive Species White River Exceptions, modifications, or waivers 2016 aerial raptor nest survey results as Within 0.25 mile of BLM Field Office No surface occupancy to this no surface occupancy stipulation well as results of monitoring conducted identified nests RMPE may be granted by the Area Manager. before and during construction Raptor Nests – Other Than Special Status Raptors White River Exceptions, modifications, or waivers 2016 aerial raptor nest survey results as Within 0.125 mile of BLM Field Office No surface occupancy to this no surface occupancy stipulation well as results of monitoring conducted identified nests RMPE may be granted by the Area Manager. before and during construction Bald Eagle Nocturnal Roosts, Concentration Areas and Nests Within a 0.25-mile Little Snake 2016 aerial raptor nest survey results as radius of roost sites and Year-round no surface occupancy will be BLM Field Office None well as results of monitoring conducted both occupied and applied RMPB before and during construction unoccupied nests No surface occupancy within a 100-meter Little Snake Within 100-meter 2016 aerial raptor nest survey results as radius of abandoned nests (unoccupied for BLM Field Office radius of abandoned None well as results of monitoring conducted 5 consecutive years, but with all or part of RMPB nests before and during construction the nest remaining) Little Snake Prohibit any activity on BLM lands that 2016 aerial raptor nest survey results as Winter conservation BLM Field Office has the potential to kill perch trees or None well as results of monitoring conducted areas RMPB impede use of foraging areas. before and during construction Bald eagle White River Exceptions, modifications, or waivers 2016 aerial raptor nest survey results as roost/concentration BLM Field Office No surface occupancy to this no surface occupancy stipulation well as results of monitoring conducted areas within 0.25 mile RMPE may be granted by the Area Manager. before and during construction of designated features This is a controlled-surface use area for Exception: The Area Manager may maintaining the long-term suitability, grant an exception to this stipulation if utility and development opportunities for an environmental analysis indicates that specialized habitat features involving nest, the proposed or conditioned activities roost and perch substrate on federal lands. would not affect the long-term White River Prior to authorizing surface disturbance in suitability or utility of habitat features 2016 aerial raptor nest survey results as Bald eagle nest, roost, BLM Field Office this area, and pending conferral or or diminish opportunities for natural well as results of monitoring conducted and perch substrate RMPE consultation with the U.S. Fish and floodplain functions. Surface before and during construction Wildlife Service (FWS) as required by the disturbance and occupation may Endangered Species Act, the Area indicate that the proposed or Manager may require the Applicant to conditioned activities would not affect submit a plan of development that would the long-term suitability or utility of demonstrate that: involvement of habitat features or diminish

Energy Gateway South Transmission Project Attachment G-21 Plan of Development Appendix B1 – Biological Resources Conservation Plan November 2016 Attachment G – Seasonal and Spatial Restrictions for Biological Resources

TABLE 4 RAPTOR SURFACE RESTRICTIONS Applicable Area to Which Data to Be Used to Apply Agency Plan/Policy Restriction Applies Restriction Exception Restrictions cottonwood stands or cottonwood opportunities for natural floodplain regeneration areas have been avoided to functions. Surface disturbance and the extent practicable; special reclamation occupation also may be authorized in measures or design features are the event that established impacts on incorporated that would accelerate habitat values would be compensated recovery and/or re-establishment of or offset to the satisfaction of the BLM affected cottonwood communities; the in consultation with FWS and CPW. predevelopment potential of affected Modification: Integral with exception floodplains to develop or support riverine and stipulation cottonwood communities has not been Waiver: None diminished; and the current/future utility of such cottonwood substrate for bald eagle use would not be impaired. No ground-disturbing activities within 0.5- 2016 aerial raptor nest survey results as Rawlins Field Communal winter roost BLM mile of active bald eagle communal winter None well as results of monitoring conducted Office RMPA areas roost sites year-round1. before and during construction Ferruginous Hawk Well locations, roads, ancillary facilities, and other surface structures requiring a repeated human presence will not be 2016 aerial raptor nest survey results as Rawlins Field Within 1,200 feet of BLM allowed. Distance may vary depending on None well as results of monitoring conducted Office RMPA active ferruginous nests factors such as nest activity, species, before and during construction natural topographic barriers, and line-of- sight distances. SOURCES: ABLM. 2008a. Record of Decision and Approved Rawlins Resource Management Plan. Rawlins Field Office, Rawlins, Wyoming. BBLM. 2011. Little Snake Field Office Record of Decision and Approved Resource Management Plan. Craig, Colorado. CBLM. 2008d. Record of Decision and Approved Resource Management Plan. Vernal Field Office, Vernal, Utah. DBLM. 2008b. Price Field Office Record of Decision and Approved Resource Management Plan. Price, Utah. EBLM. 1997. White River Record of Decision and Approved Resource Management Plan. White River Field Office, Meeker, Colorado. NOTE: 1The year-round buffer zone on ground-disturbing activities of 0.5 mile of active bald eagle communal winter roost sites may be adjusted based on site-specific information through coordination with and written concurrence from the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Wyoming Field Office.

Energy Gateway South Transmission Project Attachment G-22 Plan of Development Appendix B1 – Biological Resources Conservation Plan November 2016 Attachment G – Seasonal and Spatial Restrictions for Biological Resources

TABLE 5 SEASONAL AND SPATIAL RESTRICTIONS FOR BREEDING RAPTORS1 Wyoming Colorado Utah U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) Bureau of Land Management BLM Little Snake Field OfficeB/ Utah Ecological Services Field (BLM) Rawlins Field OfficeA BLM White River Field OfficeC,6 OfficeD/BLM IM 2006-096 Spatial Buffer Seasonal Spatial Buffer Spatial Buffer Data to be used to apply Raptors (miles) Buffer (miles) Seasonal Buffer5 (miles) Seasonal Buffer restrictions No development activities are allowed within 0.25 miles 2016 aerial raptor nest survey results Project April 1 to of identified nests from as well as results of monitoring American kestrel 0.75 0.25 migratory bird April 1 to August 15 July 31 February 1 through August conducted before and during guidelines 15, or until fledgling and construction dispersal of young. Refer to Refer to No development within 0.5 2016 aerial raptor nest survey results National Bald National Bald Surface disturbing mile December 15 to August as well as results of monitoring Bald eagle Eagle Eagle 0.50 1 activities January 1 to 15, or until fledgling and conducted before and during Management Management August 31 dispersal of young. construction Guidelines Guidelines Utah Department of Wildlife Resources (UDWR) database, site- No development is allowed specific information from other land Bald eagle (winter within 0.50 mile of identified November 1 to March – – 0.50 0.5 3 management agencies; when existing roost2) sites from November 15 313 raptor information is unavailable or through April 15. determined to be insufficient, surveys should be conducted Surface disturbing or other 2016 aerial raptor nest survey results Bald eagle disruptive as well as results of monitoring (communal winter 2 activities – – – – conducted before and during roost areas4) prohibited construction within 2 miles February 1 to August 15.

Energy Gateway South Transmission Project Attachment G-23 Plan of Development Appendix B1 – Biological Resources Conservation Plan November 2016 Attachment G – Seasonal and Spatial Restrictions for Biological Resources

TABLE 5 SEASONAL AND SPATIAL RESTRICTIONS FOR BREEDING RAPTORS1 Wyoming Colorado Utah U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) Bureau of Land Management BLM Little Snake Field OfficeB/ Utah Ecological Services Field (BLM) Rawlins Field OfficeA BLM White River Field OfficeC,6 OfficeD/BLM IM 2006-096 Spatial Buffer Seasonal Spatial Buffer Spatial Buffer Data to be used to apply Raptors (miles) Buffer (miles) Seasonal Buffer5 (miles) Seasonal Buffer restrictions Surface disturbing or other 2016 aerial raptor nest survey results disruptive as well as results of monitoring 1 activities – – – – conducted before and during prohibited construction within 1 mile November 1 to April 1. Bald eagle (Active 2016 aerial raptor nest survey results November 1 to August 15, or winter night roost as well as results of monitoring – – 0.50 until fledgling and dispersal – – without a direct line conducted before and during of young. of sight) construction 2016 aerial raptor nest survey results February 1 to August 15, or Bald eagle (hunting as well as results of monitoring – – 0.25 until fledgling and dispersal – – perch) conducted before and during of young. construction 2016 aerial raptor nest survey results February 1 to August 15, or as well as results of monitoring Boreal owl – – 0.25 until fledgling and dispersal 0.25 February 1 to July 31 conducted before and during of young. construction 2016 aerial raptor nest survey results February 1 to August 15, or April 1 to as well as results of monitoring Burrowing owl 0.75 0.50 until fledgling and dispersal 0.25 March 1 to August 31 September 15 conducted before and during of young. construction 2016 aerial raptor nest survey results February 1 to August 15, or Project February 1 to February 1 to as well as results of monitoring Common barn owl 0.75 0.25 until fledgling and dispersal migratory bird July 15 September 15 conducted before and during of young. guidelines construction 2016 aerial raptor nest survey results February 1 to August 15, or April 1 to March 15 to August as well as results of monitoring Cooper's hawk 0.75 0.50 until fledgling and dispersal 0.5 July 31 31 conducted before and during of young. construction

Energy Gateway South Transmission Project Attachment G-24 Plan of Development Appendix B1 – Biological Resources Conservation Plan November 2016 Attachment G – Seasonal and Spatial Restrictions for Biological Resources

TABLE 5 SEASONAL AND SPATIAL RESTRICTIONS FOR BREEDING RAPTORS1 Wyoming Colorado Utah U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) Bureau of Land Management BLM Little Snake Field OfficeB/ Utah Ecological Services Field (BLM) Rawlins Field OfficeA BLM White River Field OfficeC,6 OfficeD/BLM IM 2006-096 Spatial Buffer Seasonal Spatial Buffer Spatial Buffer Data to be used to apply Raptors (miles) Buffer (miles) Seasonal Buffer5 (miles) Seasonal Buffer restrictions 2016 aerial raptor nest survey results February 1 to August 15, or March 1 to as well as results of monitoring Eastern screech -owl 0.75 0.25 until fledgling and dispersal 0.25 March 1 to August 15 July 31 conducted before and during of young. construction 2016 aerial raptor nest survey results February 1 to August 15, or March 1 to as well as results of monitoring Ferruginous hawk 1 1.00 until fledgling and dispersal 0.5 March 1 to August 1 July 31 conducted before and during of young. construction 2016 aerial raptor nest survey results February 1 to August 15, or April 1 to September as well as results of monitoring Flammulated owl – – 0.25 until fledgling and dispersal 0.25 30 conducted before and during of young. construction 2016 aerial raptor nest survey results February 1 to August 15, or February 1 to January 1 to August as well as results of monitoring Golden eagle 1 0.50 until fledgling and dispersal 0.5 July 15 31 conducted before and during of young. construction 2016 aerial raptor nest survey results February 1 to August 15, or as well as results of monitoring Great gray owl – – 0.25 until fledgling and dispersal – – conducted before and during of young. construction 2016 aerial raptor nest survey results February 1 to August 15, or February 1 to December 1 to as well as results of monitoring Great horned owl 0.75 0.25 until fledgling and dispersal 0.25 July 15 September 31 conducted before and during of young. construction 2016 aerial raptor nest survey results February 1 to August 15, or March 1 to February 1 to August as well as results of monitoring Long-eared owl 0.75 0.50 until fledgling and dispersal 0.25 July 31 15 conducted before and during of young. construction 2016 aerial raptor nest survey results February 1 to August 15, or April 1 to as well as results of monitoring Merlin 0.75 0.25 until fledgling and dispersal 0.5 April 1 to August 31 July 31 conducted before and during of young. construction

Energy Gateway South Transmission Project Attachment G-25 Plan of Development Appendix B1 – Biological Resources Conservation Plan November 2016 Attachment G – Seasonal and Spatial Restrictions for Biological Resources

TABLE 5 SEASONAL AND SPATIAL RESTRICTIONS FOR BREEDING RAPTORS1 Wyoming Colorado Utah U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) Bureau of Land Management BLM Little Snake Field OfficeB/ Utah Ecological Services Field (BLM) Rawlins Field OfficeA BLM White River Field OfficeC,6 OfficeD/BLM IM 2006-096 Spatial Buffer Seasonal Spatial Buffer Spatial Buffer Data to be used to apply Raptors (miles) Buffer (miles) Seasonal Buffer5 (miles) Seasonal Buffer restrictions 2016 aerial raptor nest survey results February 1 to August 15, or as well as results of monitoring Mexican spotted owl – – 0.25 until fledgling and dispersal 0.5 March 1 to August 31 conducted before and during of young. construction March 1 to August 15 2016 aerial raptor nest survey results February 1 to August 15, or (March 1 to April 1 to as well as results of monitoring Northern goshawk 0.75 0.50 until fledgling and dispersal 0.5 September 30 post- August 31 conducted before and during of young. fledgling areas U.S. construction Forest Service8) 2016 aerial raptor nest survey results February 1 to August 15, or April 1 to as well as results of monitoring Northern harrier 0.75 0.50 until fledgling and dispersal 0.5 April 1 to August 15 July 31 conducted before and during of young. construction 2016 aerial raptor nest survey results February 1 to August 15, or as well as results of monitoring Northern pygmy-owl – – 0.50 until fledgling and dispersal 0.25 April 1 to August 15 conducted before and during of young. construction 2016 aerial raptor nest survey results February 1 to August 15, or Northern saw-whet as well as results of monitoring – – 0.50 until fledgling and dispersal 0.25 March 1 to August 31 owl conducted before and during of young. construction 2016 aerial raptor nest survey results February 1 to August 15, or April 1 to as well as results of monitoring Osprey 0.75 0.50 until fledgling and dispersal 0.5 April 1 to August 31 July 31 conducted before and during of young. construction 2016 aerial raptor nest survey results February 1 to August 15, or March 1 to February 1 to August as well as results of monitoring Peregrine falcon 0.75 0.50 until fledgling and dispersal 1 July 31 31 conducted before and during of young. construction 2016 aerial raptor nest survey results February 1 to August 15, or April 1 to as well as results of monitoring Prairie falcon 0.75 0.50 until fledgling and dispersal 0.25 April 1 to August 31 July 31 conducted before and during of young. construction

Energy Gateway South Transmission Project Attachment G-26 Plan of Development Appendix B1 – Biological Resources Conservation Plan November 2016 Attachment G – Seasonal and Spatial Restrictions for Biological Resources

TABLE 5 SEASONAL AND SPATIAL RESTRICTIONS FOR BREEDING RAPTORS1 Wyoming Colorado Utah U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) Bureau of Land Management BLM Little Snake Field OfficeB/ Utah Ecological Services Field (BLM) Rawlins Field OfficeA BLM White River Field OfficeC,6 OfficeD/BLM IM 2006-096 Spatial Buffer Seasonal Spatial Buffer Spatial Buffer Data to be used to apply Raptors (miles) Buffer (miles) Seasonal Buffer5 (miles) Seasonal Buffer restrictions March 15 to August 2016 aerial raptor nest survey results February 1 to August 15, or February 1 to 15 (March 1 to August as well as results of monitoring Red-tailed hawk 0.75 0.50 until fledgling and dispersal 0.5 July 15 15 in BLM Vernal conducted before and during of young. Field Office9) construction 2016 aerial raptor nest survey results February 1 to August 15, or April 1 to March 15 to August as well as results of monitoring Sharp-shinned hawk 0.75 0.50 until fledgling and dispersal 0.5 July 31 31 conducted before and during of young. construction 2016 aerial raptor nest survey results February 1 to August 15, or March 1 to as well as results of monitoring Short-eared owl 0.75 0.25 until fledgling and dispersal 0.25 March 1 to August 1 July 31 conducted before and during of young. construction 2016 aerial raptor nest survey results February 1 to August 15, or April 1 to as well as results of monitoring Swainson's hawk 0.75 0.25 until fledgling and dispersal 0.5 March 1 to August 31 July 31 conducted before and during of young. construction 2016 aerial raptor nest survey results February 1 to August 15, or as well as results of monitoring Turkey vulture – – 0.25 until fledgling and dispersal 0.5 May 1 to August 15 conducted before and during of young. construction 2016 aerial raptor nest survey results February 1 to August 15, or March 1 to as well as results of monitoring Western screech-owl 0.75 0.25 until fledgling and dispersal 0.25 March 1 to August 15 July 31 conducted before and during of young. construction This area encompasses the Raptor nesting sites; nests of threatened, listed, proposed, and endangered, or candidate 2016 aerial raptor nest survey results candidate threatened raptors. No development as well as results of monitoring and endangered and – – 0.50 activities within 0.5 mile of – – conducted before and during BLM sensitive except identified nest sites February construction bald eagle and 1 through August 15, or until ferruginous hawks fledgling and dispersal of young.

Energy Gateway South Transmission Project Attachment G-27 Plan of Development Appendix B1 – Biological Resources Conservation Plan November 2016 Attachment G – Seasonal and Spatial Restrictions for Biological Resources

TABLE 5 SEASONAL AND SPATIAL RESTRICTIONS FOR BREEDING RAPTORS1 Wyoming Colorado Utah U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) Bureau of Land Management BLM Little Snake Field OfficeB/ Utah Ecological Services Field (BLM) Rawlins Field OfficeA BLM White River Field OfficeC,6 OfficeD/BLM IM 2006-096 Spatial Buffer Seasonal Spatial Buffer Spatial Buffer Data to be used to apply Raptors (miles) Buffer (miles) Seasonal Buffer5 (miles) Seasonal Buffer restrictions Raptor nesting sites; No development activities other than threatened within 0.25 mile of identified 2016 aerial raptor nest survey results and endangered and nests from February 1 as well as results of monitoring – – 0.25 – – candidate threatened through August 31, or until conducted before and during and endangered fledgling and dispersal of construction species young. SOURCES: ABLM. 2008. Record of Decision and Approved Rawlins Resource Management Plan. Rawlins Field Office, Rawlins, Wyoming. BBLM. 2011. Little Snake Record of Decision and Approved Resource Management Plan. Little Snake Field Office, Craig, Colorado. CBLM. 1997. White River Record of Decision and Approved Resource Management Plan. White River Field Office, Meeker, Colorado. DRomin, L.A. and J.A. Muck. 2002. Utah Field Office Guidelines for Raptor Protection from Human and Land Use Disturbances. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Utah Ecological Services, West Valley City. NOTES: 1Restrictions will be applied throughout the state from which the restrictions are sourced. 2According to FWS' Utah Field Office Guidelines for Raptor Protection from Human and Land Use Disturbances (Romin and Muck, 2002) 3If the seasonal and spatial buffer cannot be implemented for bald eagle winter roosts, then preclude activity between 1 hour before sunset and 9 am daily, per Amy Defreese of Utah FWS. 4A communal roost is defined as an area usually less than 10 acres in size that contains or has contained more than 6 bald eagles on any given night. 5Exception, waiver, or modification of this limitation in any year may be approved in writing, including documented supporting analysis, by the Authorized Officer. 6Exception: An exception may be granted to these dates by the Area Manager, if authorization is obtained from the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (through applicable provisions of the Endangered Species Act, Eagle Protection Act, or Migratory Bird Treaty Act) to harass, harm, wound, or kill in the context of active nesting attempts. An exception also can be granted if an environmental analysis of the proposed action indicates that nature or conduct of the activity could be conditioned so as not to impair the utility of nest for current or subsequent nesting activity or occupancy. The Area Manager may also grant an exception if the nest is unattended or remains unoccupied by May 15 of the Project year. Modification: The Area Manager may modify the size of the stipulation area if an environmental analysis indicates that a portion of the area is nonessential to nest utility or function, or that the proposed action could be conditioned so as not to impair the utility of the nest site for current or subsequent nest activities or occupation. The stipulation also may be modified if the Applicant, the BLM, and where necessary, other affected interests, negotiate compensation that satisfactorily offsets anticipated impacts on candidate and BLM-sensitive raptor breeding activities and/or habitats. Modifications also could occur if sufficient information is provided that supports the contention that the action would not contribute to the suppression of breeding population densities or the population’s production or recruitment regime from a geographic reference area perspective. If a species status is downgraded, or if a species is delisted, the size of the timing limitation area may be reduced. Waiver: A waiver may be granted if the species becomes extinct or there is no reasonable likelihood of site occupation over a minimum 10-year period. 7Exception: The Authorized Officer may grant an exception if the raptor nest in question is deemed to be inactive by May 31 and if the proposed activity would not result in a permanent structure or facility that would cause the subject nest to become unsuitable for nesting in future years. Modification: Season may be adjusted depending on climatic and range conditions. Distance may be adjusted if natural features provide adequate visual screening. Waiver: This stipulation may be waived if, in cooperation with the Utah Division of Wildlife Resources, it is determined that the site has been permanently abandoned or unoccupied for a minimum of 3 years. 8U.S. Forest Service. 2000. Land and Resource Management Plan Amendment – Utah Northern Goshawk Project. 9BLM. 2008. Record of Decision and Approved Resource Management Plan. Vernal Field Office, Vernal, Utah.

Energy Gateway South Transmission Project Attachment G-28 Plan of Development Appendix B1 – Biological Resources Conservation Plan November 2016 Attachment G – Seasonal and Spatial Restrictions for Biological Resources